# 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:** 15
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2002, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/281 "2002-05-08T21:19:30Z")
Cute. The lengths some people will go to sometimes. Now there is no such thing as literal. And I can’t prove chairs exist either. :rolleyes: Oh, and I’m not one of those primitive hairless apes because I wasn’t alive thousands of years ago. I am a modern hairless ape. DaLovin’ Dj ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2002, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/282 "2002-05-08T21:32:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Newton meter \* > **The problem with the question is that the literalist doesn’t think the bible is free of contradictions because it just doesn’t happen to contain any contradictions. The literalist _starts with_ the belief that the bible is the received word of God.** I think you’re adding parameters to the question, although I don’t understand why. I don’t care about _why_ a Literalist thinks the Bible is 100% true–it could be because God Himself wrote it, or because highly advanced space aliens bequeathed it unto humanity, because it was the most faithfully transcribed book ever, or what have you. I originally proposed my question because I saw some examples of what I thought were clear contradictions–e.g., King So-and-So was X years old when he died in one book, but he was Y years old when he died in a different book. So, in short, I asked: if that ain’t a contradiction, what is? Maybe I can offer up an analogy that removes God altogether. Suppose I hand you a napkin with some writing on it and tell you that the napkin is free from contradiction. On the napkin is written, “My dog is **only** one color. My dog is yellow. My dog is also green.” **Newton-Meter** : “Aha! There’s a contradiction! If your dog is only one color, he can’t be BOTH yellow and green!” **Me** : “You’re just rejecting the Napkin. As we all learned from the Zip-Lock commercial, yellow and blue MAKE green. So, if the dog is green, he is also yellow.” **NM** : “Um… okay. If you’re going through such hoops to explain away such a contradiction, then what _would_ you accept as a contradiction?” **Me** : “Well, if the napkin were to say that my one-colored dog is both yellow and also purple, then that would be a contradiction. But, fortunately, the Napkin does not say that.” I just want someone to offer up that last bit in reference to the Bible instead of the napkin. (Do the underlined words look familiar, by any chance?) As far as presuming if there are Literalists reading this page, I refer you to my post at 1:14 AM EDT on April 27 (Page 5 of this thread), as well as **JTC** ’s immediate reply. To me, his reply makes it sound like the question is relevant to him. Also, as **dalovindj** mentioned, in addition to my Drivebys are the Lurkers. Quix ---
**Author:** ![domesticatedjunglefowl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b38774/32.png) [@domesticatedjunglefowl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/domesticatedjunglefowl)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2002, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/283 "2002-05-08T22:22:00Z")
ahh… where could one go to find a fundie who believes in the bible in the literal sense?? well… williamson county texas. or just surf on over to [www.capalert.com](http://www.capalert.com) and read the wonderful literalist fundie musings of thomas carder. you could ask him any question concerning christian theology or the bible at [cap@capalert.com](mailto:cap@capalert.com). You’ll get a hand typed, godly, and righteous insight into God’s perfect plan and the bible. ---
**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:** [May 8, 2002, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/284 "2002-05-08T22:25:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by quixotic78 \* > **I think you’re adding parameters to the question, although I don’t understand why.** It goes to the _possibility_ of biblical contradictions. If one doesn’t agree that they are _possible_, then it is not possible to provide one. > [@](#): > > **So, in short, I asked: if that ain’t a contradiction, what is?** But I answered that back on page 1: nothing. If you can’t get someone to admit that the two geneologies of Joseph are contradictory (for instance), then a “fancier” contradiction isn’t going to get them either. > [@](#): > > **Suppose I hand you a napkin with some writing on it and tell you that the napkin is free from contradiction… Well, if the napkin were to say that my one-colored dog is both yellow and also purple, then that would be a contradiction.** How could a contradiction be found written on a napkin which does not contain a contradiction? If the napkin does not contain a contradiction, as you stated, then there are two possibilities. Either you can be sure that there is no possible world where the napkin says “yellow+purple”, or “yellow+purple” in not actually a contradiction. ---
**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:** [May 8, 2002, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/285 "2002-05-08T22:29:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dalovindj \* > **Cute. The lengths some people will go to sometimes. Now there is no such thing as literal. And I can’t prove chairs exist either. :rolleyes:** Cute. So there is a priveleged interpretation of the bible, and it happens to be yours. How terribly convenient. I’m glad you stuck around long enough to declare yourself the winner, 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:** [May 8, 2002, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/286 "2002-05-08T22:55:01Z")
What is the literal interpretation of this sentence, dj? > [@](#): > > They hit the man with a cane. Or try this one on for size: > [@](#): > > A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. What is the _literal_ reading? How do you know? And you’re sure you can unambiguously read the bible correctly? Better bust out the rolly eyes for yourself, dj. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2002, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/287 "2002-05-08T23:18:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Newton meter \* > **But I answered that back on page 1: nothing. If you can’t get someone to admit that the two geneologies of Joseph are contradictory (for instance), then a “fancier” contradiction isn’t going to get them either.** Well, I suppose we’re in greater agreement than I had supposed, because that’s what I’ve maintained. Indeed, it’s what prompted my question! So I suppose I’ll rephrase and ask, of the Literalists: Do you agree with my (and **Newton Meter’s** ) position, that there are no possible or conceivable contradictions in the Bible? Or can you come up with an example that you would take as a contradiction (but which isn’t present in the Bible)? Quix ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/288 "2002-05-09T00:29:20Z")
> [@](#): > > They hit the man with a cane. This literaly means that a man was hit by a cane by someone (or something). More of this ridiculous tactic. We can’t prove god but we can’t prove a chair either! There is no literal meaning in the bible because there is no literal meaning in anything! Foolish and pathetic tactic IMO. > [@](#): > > So there is a priveleged interpretation of the bible, and it happens to be yours. I never said this. There is a literal meaning to the words (oh, I forgot there is no such thing as literal :rolleyes: ), it can be _read_ literally, but as best I can tell there is no priveleged _interpretation_. There are a whole bunch of different interpretations offered by many different people, but they all lack evidence to support them and amount to no more than wishful thinking and superstition. DaLovin’ Dj ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/289 "2002-05-09T01:29:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Newton meter \* > The impossibility of describing him any other way. What’s to make you think that we can’t describe god directly. I think you’re just making things up, unless of course there’s a passage in the bible where God himself states “I am only describing myself in analogies.” If there isn’t, then it is illogical to assume he is. Note: if you do find a passage like this, then I will ask you “how do you know what he meant by ‘analogies.’” > [@](#): > > You _think_? Are you insisting that all others must think the same as you? Or are you willing to allow that they might think differently? NO. I’m insisting that based on context, and definition, words have specific meanings. Unless context dictates otherwise, we should take every word at its face value. If this rule doesn’t hold, then the bible is completely useless, since it’s basically blank. > [@](#): > > Of course not. But what if that person were incapable of lying and also said “I am loving”? Then something’s got to give. If god is omnipotent, he cannot be incapable of anything. (Which of course leads to the famous, “Can god make a boulder so massive that even he can’t move it.”) > [@](#): > > That is, there’s a whole train of assumptions that makes this a contradiction. To resolve the contradiction, you have to reject a few of those assumptions. Fine, you’ve made a good case for that. You haven’t made a good case for insisting that everyone should reject the same assumptions you have. Let me ask you this: do you believe that it is _possible_ that the bible _could_ contain a contradiction? ---
**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:** [May 9, 2002, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/290 "2002-05-09T14:19:06Z")
> [@](#): > > _dalovindj:_ > **This literaly means that a man was hit by a cane by someone (or something).** Bzzzt. It means that the man who was walking with a cane was hit by someone. I should know, I wrote the sentence. > [@](#): > > **More of this ridiculous tactic… Foolish and pathetic tactic IMO.** You’re the one in the position of trying to claim that there is no ambiguity in natural language. Better be careful about slinging “ridiculous”, “foolish” and “pathetic” around. > [@](#): > > **There are a whole bunch of different interpretations offered by many different people, but they all lack evidence to support them and amount to no more than wishful thinking and superstition.** The same criticism can be leveled at the U.S. Constitution and the rules of Major League Baseball. Are those documents worthless as well? You are one of the least self-aware posters I’ve seen, dj. You rail against solipsism yet insist on extreme skepticism, as if you didn’t know those two philosophies were only separated by a hair. Just come out and say it, you hate religion because… you hate religion. No need to go through all these logical contortions to try to prove that hating religion is correct. I’ll even give you more ammunition: 1. Did you know that Catholics are cannibals? 2. Did you know that Jews mutilate small children? 3. Did you know that Christians are not monotheists? Your approach–make stuff up about your opponent and hope someone buys it–is at least 2000 years old. ---
**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:** [May 9, 2002, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/291 "2002-05-09T14:31:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by quixotic78 \* > **Well, I suppose we’re in greater agreement than I had supposed, because that’s what I’ve maintained.** Lord have mercy on us. I guess that’s what happens when you give your opponent a pound of respect and a foot of wriggle room. I’ll offer to buy the first round next time you get up my way. But why bother asking the question :)? The tone of the debate to get a literalist to admit to a contradiction seems exactly the same as trying to get an atheist to admit that there is a God. There’s even the same insulting assumption that if they just thought about it a little more they would see the light. I suppose the goal should be that both sides in the debate think about the question. When that has been adequately demonstrated and there’s still no agreement, what’re you gonna do? I think the position espoused by **JThunder** and **JubilationTCornpone** should be shown quite a bit of respect. Not necessarily as the _correct_ position, but as _their_ position. Especially if you want them to be willing to freely participate in the next Young Earth Creationist debate. ---
**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:** [May 9, 2002, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/292 "2002-05-09T14:59:10Z")
> [@](#): > > _Qwertyasdfg:_ > **What’s to make you think that we can’t describe god directly.** The failure of every attempt so far? Philosophical musings on the nature of God? What makes you think we can? The following informal argument should suffice. Presume that God can be correctly, completely, and unambiguously described by a list of natural language statements. Also, presume that there is a decision procedure that allows us to determine if a given list of statements is a _correct_ description. Since there is a decision procedure for God, we can fully know God’s nature by generating every possible list of statements and checking them. If we use some useful heuristics and all our computation power, we might even hit on it in the next few thousand years. And since God contains knowledge of everything that ever happened in all of time (including future time), then we would know everything. There is a possibility that we would have correctly ascertained the complete nature of God. But one of my axioms is that God is not completely knowable by man. His nature exceeds our capacity. Thus a contradiction. Therefore, there is either no literal description of God or no possible way for us to recognize a correct one. > [@](#): > > **I think you’re just making things up, unless of course there’s a passage in the bible where God himself states “I am only describing myself in analogies.” If there isn’t, then it is illogical to assume he is.** And you’re assuming that there is a single _literal_ reading of the bible (namely the one that produces the contradiction). Where does it say _that_ in the bible? Why is it logical to assume it? _None_ of your assumptions are found in the bible either. The whole argument boils down to your insistence that everyone must share _your_ assumptions. There is no reason that we should. > [@](#): > > **Note: if you do find a passage like this, then I will ask you "how do you know what he meant by ‘analogies.’"** Of course, and if you found a passage that said there was a single literal interpretation of the bible, I would ask “how do you know what that ‘literal’ interpretation is?”. > [@](#): > > **Unless context dictates otherwise, we should take every word at its face value. If this rule doesn’t hold, then the bible is completely useless, since it’s basically blank.** Doesn’t this criticism hold for everything that was ever written or said? Unless you read only legal documents, you ought to understand that language is ambiguous and still carries meaning. Even legal documents are ambiguous, luckily for the lawyers’ continued employment. > [@](#): > > **Let me ask you this: do you believe that it is _possible_ that the bible _could_ contain a contradiction?** I’ll go you one better. I believe that the bible _does_ contain contradictions. That is, (according to Brouwer’s system) I believe that the _possibility_ of contradiction is _necessary_. I’ve already said as much _N_ different times in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/293 "2002-05-09T15:55:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Newton meter \* > \*\* > Bzzzt. It means that the man who was walking with a cane was hit by someone. I should know, I wrote the sentence. That is where context comes in. Fortunately the bible provides us with a ton of context. But you are correct, that sentence can have two literal meanings. If you were trying to give me a perfect description, you failed. It could not have any other literal meaning. It could also mean that you’re ready to take the secret briefcase at the drop-off point if I have the proper context. Either way, your points here only strengthen the case against the book being taken literaly. **ME:** If you take it literaly it’s evil - You shouldn’t take it literally. **YOU:** But you can’t take anything literaly! You shouldn’t take it literaly! So we are saying the same thing. Now we are faced with the dillemma of “What mechanism to use to determine what, if any of it, is based in any kind of fact whatsoever?”. Prayer? Tried it. Nothing much happened. You know if you sit there long enough and tell yourself something over and over again maybe you can convince yourself you felt anything. Let’s look for something that would confirm any of this heresay. > [@](#): > > The same criticism can be leveled at the U.S. Constitution and the rules of Major League Baseball. Are those documents worthless as well? Neither is perfect, and I don’t think many would claim they are. The opposite is true of the literal followers of the book in question. > [@](#): > > You are one of the least self-aware posters I’ve seen, dj. Flattery will get you nothing mister . . . > [@](#): > > 1. Did you know that Catholics are cannibals? > 2. Did you know that Jews mutilate small children? > 3. Did you know that Christians are not monotheists? > > Your approach–make stuff up about your opponent and hope someone buys it–is at least 2000 years old. This is quite a comparison. A pretty steep accusation. Cite of a comparable statements on my part, or a retraction of the implication that I would make up such lies. Please. DaLovin’ Dj ---
**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:** [May 9, 2002, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/294 "2002-05-09T16:20:13Z")
If we are allowed to assume that the Bible is not literally true from cover to cover, and that some of the tales told are merely fables created to teach us a lesson, and that a codex does not exist that definitely tells us which parts are truth and which are fable, and that we are decide for ourselves to the best of our ability which are which, I have a solution. I have decided that the part of the Bible that claims that there is a God is fable. Any problems with _my_ interpretation? ---
**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:** [May 9, 2002, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/295 "2002-05-09T17:08:26Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by dalovindj \* > This is quite a comparison. A pretty steep accusation. Cite of a comparable statements on my part, or a retraction of the implication that I would make up such lies. Please._\* You have repeatedly claimed that Christians (and Jews) can only be evil or stupid, and that they worship evil and an evil God. The following are quotes of yours from only this thread. In most cases I have copied entire paragraphs to make sure I got the context right. These are the beliefs you insist your opponents hold, whether they agree or not. The implication is clear, “Christians and Jews who practice their religion correctly worship evil and are evil”. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > I have a theory. Everyone who believes this stuff is getting hoodwinked. > [@](#): > > 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 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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”. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > Still, idiots find a way to imply that racism and murder are justifiable if done in the lords name. Absolutely disgusting. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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? > [@](#): > > 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). > [@](#): > > I can’t understand why people will go as far as to throw away their most basic morals to defend that book. > [@](#): > > 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? > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > make that “a monster” > [@](#): > > Just so we are clear, you are in favor of murdering infants, as long as “god” commands it? > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > Contradiction. But it is a minor one compared to the whole issue of a “good” entity commanding armies to slice up babies and children. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > There is a such thing as morals and most of us have them. Gods actions are either in line with morality or not. To change the definition of morals to fit god makes the words useless. Just like that book and that god. > [@](#): > > Racism is wrong. > Genocide is wrong. > The murder of infants is wrong. > The murder of women who are not virgins is wrong. > The murder of disrespectful sons is wrong. > The murder of people for committing adultery is wrong. > > If you disagree with the above statements than I consider you to be barbaric, repulsive, and I hold you in the highest contempt. > [@](#): > > But you mention god and now all of these things magically don’t have to be wrong because we aren’t smart enough to understand. Bullshit. Shame on any of you who think there could ever be any proper reason for any of these things. Join the civilized world and give up on this barbaric mythology as being true. You make the world an uglier place when you justify the actions of monsters who would murder children. > [@](#): > > Real fuckin’ nice. God orders the death of any woman who had sex (which he supposedly designed them to want!), but says “Hey, keep the virgins for yourself. Enjoy!”. So much for womens lib. I really hope this bastard meets a horrible end if he exists and really behaves this way. Especially since men don’t get killed for not being virgins. Nothing like a double standard. So god is an evil, chauvanistic, racist, genocidal mad-man who orders the infants of children. Sure. > [@](#): > > Nothin’ like killing people and taking any woman you want. Repulsive. Any literalists care to try to defend this order? By the way this is contradictory to my earlier quote in which god wanted the non-virgin women killed. The soldiers should be allowed to grab any lady they like according to the supposed gods instructions. > [@](#): > > It amazes me that people expect me to accept that I can’t know what is good or evil concerning god, but they somehow can know for sure what his true nature is and that it must be good. If I can’t call him evil cause of not enough data, you can’t call him good for the same reason. All we can use are human standards - and by those he is an evil dickhead who people should be ashamed to worship. > [@](#): > > Hmmmm. The punishment for rape (as long as the woman is not betrothed or married) is a fine and you have to (get to?) marry the woman you raped. Sounds real nice for the woman. Great god you folks have got yourselves. > [@](#): > > I think that this thread has shown that biblical literalism is pretty much indefensible in the end if you wish to maintain a reasonable moral code. ---
**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:** [May 9, 2002, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/296 "2002-05-09T17:26:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Czarcasm \* > \*\*I have decided that the part of the Bible that claims that there is a God is fable. > Any problems with _my_ interpretation? \*\* I don’t have any problems with it. It nicely resolves all the contradictions, too. kg m²/s² [sub]PS: Could I impose on you to fix my coding above? There’s a closing bold tag in the very first quote that should either be removed or opened somewhere.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/297 "2002-05-09T18:11:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Newton meter \* > **But why bother asking the question :)? The tone of the debate to get a literalist to admit to a contradiction seems exactly the same as trying to get an atheist to admit that there is a God. There’s even the same insulting assumption that if they just thought about it a little more they would see the light.** But you _can_ convince an atheist that there is a God! I seem to recall learning in one class or another that someone once asked Bertrand Russell, the Granddaddy of Modern Atheism/Agnosticism, what it would take for him to believe in God. Instead of saying that such a transformation was impossible, he merely replied that God would just have to prove Himself in a way that only God could. I think the specific example Russell gave would be that God would have to tell Russell, with great specificity, all that would happen for a day before it happened. I’ve always looked at it this way–if God loves me, and He wants me, then He should know (what with His omniscience and whatnot) what it’d take to get me to accept Him. Because Lord knows I’ve tried the “normal” way, and it simply didn’t take. I understand the oft-cited stipulation that God wants us to accept Him despite our doubts… but I couldn’t play that game, despite years of trying. Doesn’t He have a backup plan for the doubters who have made an honest effort? Or does He send me right to Hell because of a questioning nature that He Himself instilled in me? Bah, I’m off on a tangent. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress. ---
**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:** [May 9, 2002, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/298 "2002-05-09T18:36:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by quixotic78 \* > **But you _can_ convince an atheist that there is a God!** Indubitably. But it’s been my experience that most atheists don’t appreciate the attempt. ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/299 "2002-05-09T19:14:02Z")
Newton Meter: Your entire case (as far as our argument is concerned at least) is that we can’t know what god is saying. If that’s the case, then he might as well not be saying anything. Insisting on this point only means that the quotes you’ve made in defense of infanticide, etc. come from within you, and that you’ve deliberatly interpreted the bible so that your own beliefs don’t sound so monsterous. Fortunatly I don’t think that the bible is completely blank. I think that unless it says or implies otherwise, we should take it at face value. Please explain to me what is wrong with this? Why should it be read any differently than any other literature? If I write “I love cookies” you can know that I do love cookies _unless_ there is context that would indicate otherwise. This is the way language works. I think your mixing up describing god with “sensing” god. We may not be abled to see god, or smell him, or feel him, but if we were to assume that he does exist, then there are adjectives that can describe him. In fact, he uses them to describe himself all the time, such as “jealous.” Think of energy or electromagnetic waves. You can’t sense them in themself, but one can still descibe and quantify them. Likewise, unless you can provide a proof from the bible itself that we cannot describe god in words, then my lack-of-assumption stands. ---
**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:** [May 9, 2002, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/300 "2002-05-09T19:28:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Qwertyasdfg \* > **Fortunatly I don’t think that the bible is completely blank. I think that unless it says or implies otherwise, we should take it at face value. Please explain to me what is wrong with this?** Nothing. You are a Fundamentalist. Bully for you. You accept the same assumptions regarding the Bible as the Fundamentalists, but disagree with their conclusions. I disagree with their assumptions in the first place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529.md?page=16)