Thanks tracer.
Is this an example of the “God-like” we are supposed to strive for?
Actually, the Bible that I have states in both passages that it was the brother of Goliath.
I certainly wouldn’t claim that. It could be that they’re being MORE diligent than I – or that we’re both lacking in diligence.
Either way, it still shows that you’re presenting a false dilemma. The choices are not limited to merely (a) the Bible must be clearly understood by everyone, or (b) it must be thrown away.
When God ordered that a certain people were to be “eradicated,” so to speak, He knew that if the Jews were to come into that place while the pagans were still there, the pagans would pollute the Jews spiritually and physically. Secondly, He also knew that the pagans would not turn from their evil ways to worship Him, but would turn the Jews to their lifestyle. And, in many cases, when the Jews failed to totally wipe out a particular race, that is *exactly[/] what happened.
Again, you’re missing the point. YES, the Bible is meant for everyone, but that does not mean that its interpretation should be effortless. People are expected to apply themselves to its interpretation and study.
It’s like studying the Mona Lisa. Da Vinci could have simply painted a pretty picture – something that everyone could understand. Instead, he created something more masterful. He created a more complex work – one wherein the essentials could be seen by anyone who makes a modest effort to understand, but with shades of meaning and detail that require more study, and more effort to see. These shades of meaning and detail yield their own rewards.
Besides, do remember that the Bible purports to address some of the most troubling and profound issues in existence – including sin, human worth, our purpose on earth and our eternal destinies. One should not expect to discuss such weighty issues in a manner that requires no effort to understand.
Then again, maybe he did just paint a pretty picture, and any shades of meaning are in the mind of the beholder.
Judging from the verses quoted earlier, it seems we aren’t worth much.
As flies to wanton boys, are we to God,
He kills us for His sport.
Quite true. Quite true.
Also, please note that some posters are still bringing up God’s acts of judgment, as though this contradicts the notion that he is merciful. Frankly I’m disappointed, since we’ve been on that road before. We’ve already pointed out that such argumentation,while interesting, does NOT constitute a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when someone claims both “Statement A” and “Not Statement A.”
So why would a merciful God ordain such harsh judgments? Such a topic is worthy of great theological debate… but it’s not a contradiction in any accurate sense of the term.
The implicit assumption is that God’s mercy would preclude such wrath. Maybe, or maybe not… but either way, it’s an assumption. One could just as easily argue that the omniscient God knew these people would reject his mercy, and so chose to exercise judgment. Or one could surmise that God’s mercy had already come to an end, and that it was now time for these people to face the consequences of rejecting Yahweh. For so long as any such option remains a possibility, we can not claim that a contradiction occurs.
You get this impression from the Bible? To which specific passages are you referring? Or is this merely a vague overall impression?
Gr8Kat said:
Actually, you have it backwards. He spoke in parables so that the truth would only be understood by those who were truly seeking to learn. Jesus had developed quite a following after the feeding of the 5,000 and some of them were just coming to see miracles and get free food. Even the disciples were confused by some of the parables and Jesus had to explain the parables to them.
If someone studies the Bible diligently and prayerfully and comes up with conclusion A, a second person studies the Bible diligently and prayerfully and comes up with conclusion B, and a third person studies the Bible diligently and prayerfully and comes up with conclusion C, then either “studying diligently and prayerfully” is the wrong way to go about it, or there is nothing of signifigance to understand. We can’t even reach an agreement on whether parables are meant to simplify matters or make them more complicated then they already are.
JTCornpone, if there is no example that can be put forward to you that will show you that your god is not merciful, from the slaughter of the innocent first born to the destruction of all life on Earth(both human and animal) except for one family and some species samples, then there is no reason at all to discuss this with you. This conversation is meaningless if you insist that we start with the pre-supposition that the Bible cannot contain contradictions and that your god is merciful not matter what he does or who he kills.
First, thanks Polycarp. I’m glad someone read it. I’m still fighting that battle with conciseness and clarity of expression.
This whole debate still seems a little incongruous from where I sit. I hope the following two points are not controversial, though I expect they are.
- We are all talking about a reading of the bible. This is unavoidable. The only way it gets into our brains is by having (a translation of) it filtered through the rest of the stuff in our brains. You may insist that you did not “interpret” the bible, but that’s silly. You may insist that other’s are not allowed to “interpret” the bible, but that’s silly too.
Is there a priveleged interpretation of the bible? Perhaps, but that’s another debate. It’s clear that we (on both sides, with only a few exceptions) are not interested in the correct reading of the bible. Back on page 2, zev_steinhardt talked about the context of Jewish law and the Hebrew words used in Exodus, and was told (I paraphrase): “But my version says ‘kill’, so I don’t care about what you say.” At one point, somebody called any interpretation of scripture (other than their own, obviously) “laughable”.
A more idealistic me would have expected an outcry on both sides of the debate. If you want to claim that the bible is inaccurate, it is not effective to claim that your reading of it is inaccurate. The whole force of the criticism is that it is relevant to the most common, or most likely, or intended reading.
- We are all implicitly talking about an idea of God. The “contradictions” discussed in this thread are only contradictions given a God who does not change his mind, who cannot be both loving and hateful, who does not hide his nature, etc. I’m not arguing that such a God does exist. I’m pointing out that the entire argument is relative to a particular idea of God.
So the argument goes like this: a particular reading of the bible and a particular idea of God are inconsistent. Now, if we think that the actual world can be described by classical Aristotelian logic (it’s clear that I do not believe this is the case. I’ll point out that Aristotle lived 350 years before Christ, so don’t mistakenly believe that you’ve found a “modern” position) then it must be the case that either this reading of the bible is incorrect or this idea of God is incorrect, or both.
Big deal. That’s not very problematic. I don’t even have to point out (though I will) that the reading of the bible you are using is very literal and the idea of God you are assuming is very unsophisticated. It seems like it’s problematic (for believers) only when coupled with the insistence that your reading of the bible is the (only) correct one, and that God (if he existed) would be exactly as you imagine him.
Whoop-de-doo. I can’t even believe that I’m participating in this thread. This sort of thread would be interesting if it were honestly: “What apparent contradictions are there in scripture, and how do Christians (Jews, Muslims) reconcile them?”. I could imagine many atheists I know honestly asking that question and honestly interested in my answer.
In this case, I fear that JThunder, JubilationTCornpone, and continuum cannot ever give a “good enough” answer. It is not satisfactory to show how their interpretation of the bible leads to their idea of God. They are in the unenviable position of providing evidence for a faulty idea of God based on an impoverished reading of scriptures.
kg m²/s²
I don’t think I’ve seen JubilationTCornpone yet say anything that would cause me to think he presupposes (or even believes) the bible cannot contain contradictions.
But Czarcasm this conversation is also meaningless if you do not insist that either the bible is literally true, or a parsimonious God exists. We cannot be compelled to reject one without also being compelled to accept the other, by the very logic of this argument.
As for the idea of God being faulty, I’ll disagree with that, if you are saying that the above names’ ideas are faulty. However, I will agree with the idea that this thread has become a discussion over God’s goodness and the literal correctness of the Bible, not over contradictions and their resolutions.
‘God’ is omniscient.
It is not predetermined that a person is going to heaven or hell (one can save himself or damn himself).
So if ‘God’ is omniscient, how can ‘God’ not already know where that’s going? And if ‘God’ already knows, then there’s nothing a human can do to change what ‘God’ knows, because if they could, ‘God’ would be wrong, and thus not omiscient.
Even if ‘God’ knows that a person is going to change paths once, twice, thirty times, it’s still known right now where that person will go when that person dies. The outcome is known, predetermined. If it’s not, then ‘God’ is not omniscient, because an omniscient ‘God’ knows everything. And the future is included in everything.
continuum:
This is one of the ugliest things I have ever seen posted here. The fact that anyone would try to justify the “eradication” of an entire race is so wrong and evil I can’t believe I read it. If anyone here believes that there is ever any good reason to eradicate a whole race then you are an evil bigoted bastard. Whether you are god or human.
My goodness. The fact that some agree with wiping out people because of their race to make this bible make sense is exactly the reason I find this religion to be so repulsive. Excuse the pit like demeanor, but:
Screw anyone who thinks wiping out a whole race is reasonable, neccesary, or acceptable. You are evil in my book. Shades of Hitler this christian god of “love”.
DaLovin Dj
That’s another false dilemma, Czarcasm. There are many degrees of diligence and prayerfulness. To say that the method fails because some people were diligent and prayerful… well, that’s just fallacious binary-level thinking. In addition, one must consider the manner and technique with which one studies the scriptures. This is evidenced by the alleged “contradictions” presented here, which contain such basic errors as interpreting “after” to mean “immediately after.”
Besides, who’s to say that all these things must be made clear right now? Certainly the end-times matters don’t have to be perfectly clear to everyone at this stage.
Once again though, bear in mind that the burden of proof lies on the accuser. For the purposes of this particular debate, it is sufficient to point out that judgment does not necessarily imply lack of mercy. There comes a time when judgment and sovereignty must ultimately override warm fuzzy mercy.
Earlier, Newton meter lamented the fallacy of using an unsophisticated idea of God, and attacking the Scriptures based on that idea. I think this is a perfect example of such careless thinking. Mercy does not preclude judgment – not even harsh, earthshaking judgment. It can mitigate or delay judgment, and in some instances, even turn it away. However, mercy does not have to be exercised to the exclusion of wrath.
How is this a biblical contradiction?
There is a third possibility, catsix. You are confused about the nature of time. Earlier today, you made a “choice” to post this. Now, I know that you chose it. You cannot change your choice. Does that mean it wasn’t a choice?
Ok, If we take the assumption that “the genocide of innocent people (and animals) is merciful and loving” than its not a contradiction. If we take the assumption that “genocide is not merciful and loving,” then you have a contradiction.
Regardless of what assumption you take, the bottom line is that “God” as portrayed in the Testaments is much worse than Hitler. Why anyone would choose worship him is beyond me.