# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Hoopy\_Frood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoopy_frood/32/8452_2.png) [@Hoopy\_Frood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoopy_Frood)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/161 "2002-04-25T15:04:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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.) ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/162 "2002-04-25T15:33:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/163 "2002-04-25T15:37:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/164 "2002-04-25T15:57:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/165 "2002-04-25T18:54:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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? ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/166 "2002-04-25T19:19:09Z")
**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 ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/167 "2002-04-25T19:27:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. \*\* > [@](#): > > 1. (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. ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/168 "2002-04-25T19:30:15Z")
**JubilationTCornpone:** [quote] 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. \*\*I’m glad you brought this one up. You know what the charge is for the male partner? Nothing. Check this out, Deteronomy 15 > [@](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/169 "2002-04-25T19:36:10Z")
Grrr. Let’s try again. Sorry for the double posts. **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. 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 ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/170 "2002-04-25T19:47:19Z")
**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 ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/171 "2002-04-25T20:07:25Z")
**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 ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/172 "2002-04-25T20:10:27Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/173 "2002-04-25T20:17:12Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/174 "2002-04-25T21:39:39Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/175 "2002-04-25T21:55:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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? ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/176 "2002-04-25T21:58:51Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/177 "2002-04-25T22:40:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![David\_God\_of\_Frogs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David\_God\_of\_Frogs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_God_of_Frogs)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/178 "2002-04-26T01:27:04Z")
> [@](#): > > _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? ---
**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, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/179 "2002-04-26T02:40:24Z")
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? ---
**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, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/180 "2002-04-26T05:02:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529.md?page=10)