Once again, assumptions come into play. Your response assumes that those people were genuinely innocent, whereas the Bible claims that nobody merits that description. In fact, the Old Testament makes it clear that those people were judged because of their wrongdoings. Besides, even if we grant the innocence (or even relative innocence) of individuals in those camps, God’s sovereignty allows for the innocent to die according to his purpose. After all, the giver of life must surely have some freedom to decide when people must face their inevitable deaths, no?
Comparing God to Hitler is logically indefensible. Hitler was not the giver of life, and had no authority to take it away on such a massive scale. Hitler had no legitimate claims to sovereignty or omniscience, and thus, could not claim the same authority to determine when life should end, or even when its end is permissible. On the other hand, Hitler did choose to exterminate millions based on their racial background alone, whereas Yahweh passed judgment based on the wickedness and inequities of those people.
Now, one might disagree with the judgment of Yahweh, as portrayed in the O.T. Even then though, that would be a mere theological disagreement, and it would be intellectually dishonest to pass this off as an (ahem) “contradiction.”
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. If anyone were to come here and imply that it is OK to kill a whole race outside of this topic the flames would be piling on. 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. After all who have died in the name of equality and ending racism. After all who have stood up to evil men to end pain and suffering. Still, idiots find a way to imply that racism and murder are justifiable if done in the lords name. Absolutely disgusting.
That is bullcrap, and I have to believe you’re sophisticated enough to know it. Tell me again how the book makes people think anything. Is it an invisible mind ray that it shoots out? Can I protect myself with a special hat?
I’ve noticed that people who’ve never even heard of the bible kill people who don’t believe or worship the same things [they] do. Can you provide any cite that indicates this behavior is more prevalent among Christians than non-Christians? Don’t forget to account for the real reasons people kill each other, like when they’re in the wrong place or have the stuff we want.
I’ve also noticed that people think whatever they damn well want, and then go looking for justification.
Do you think you’re part of the solution, or part of the problem?
What I find as the most interesting contradiction, is the athiest/agnostics who are supposed to be, according to believers morally bankrupt arguing against the genocide’s in the bible and the believers claiming genocide is moral and acceptable if it is ordained by God.
When it comes to religion believers will justify anything to support their theologies.
How much diligent and prayerful studying is necessary to understand the Bible, JTCornpone, and why do you assume that you’ve reached that level of understanding? How can you think that you’ve got the ability to tell fact from fiction, truth from parable, or evidence from poetry if someone else using the same Bible comes to a completely different conclusion than you? Which scholars’ excuses do you believe? Do you believe them because they’ve studied the Bible more than anyone else, or because they tell you what you want to hear?
I’m sorry, but if anybody tried to publish a non-fiction book with so many inaccuracies and contradictions today, they wouldn’t be able to do it.
Even if they provided a complicated guide that told the reader what half the passages really meant, and which parts of the book were really just tales and not part of the actual history.
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.
If not, then this strikes me as an obvious misrepresentation of what the text says.
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, 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.
In addition, note that the Bible does not say that mere theological disagreement is enough reason to kill someone. Quite the contrary; believers are routinely instructed to rebuke, correct and instruct those who have erroneous viewpoints regarding God and salvation (2 Tim 3:16 immediately comes to mind, as do the examples of Joseph, David and Moses in the Old Testament).
It appears to me that all of the issues being raised in this thread are being dismissed by the apologetics solely on the basis that they are not strictly logical contradictions. Indeed, the entire notion of a “Biblical contradiction” has been dismissed.
So, how about replacing “contradiction” in the thread title with “inconsistency”? How then might these issues be defended? Indeed, in the OP, Beastal asked:
As such, I don’t think it’s appropriate to simply dismiss the points made by posters here because they are not “true” contradictions.
Personally, I don’t feel that the “loving God” thing has been addressed satisfactorily from a contradictory (or inconsistent, if you prefer) standpoint: given the existence of the Biblical God, we must accept that a) He is loving, or b) He is not. He cannot be both “loving” and “not loving”.
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. To me, punishment implies the possibility of redemption; it is a form of aversion therapy. You punish the sinner in the hopes that he will sin no more.
However when someone is deemed “wicked” by the OT God, that person, and everyone around him, is destroyed, with no possibility of redemption. The sinner is damned now and for all eternity, along with his entire family for generations to come. That’s not punishment, that’s spite. I honestly don’t see how anyone can rationalize that God was, indeed, “loving” to non-Jews, based on OT evidence.
Then, we have the New Testament God. Based on the evidence, this seems to be a very different God from that of the OT. For one thing, we rarely, if ever, hear anything directly from Him. In the OT, “God spoke” to lots of folks. In the NT, all we have are largely personal letters sent all over the Mediterranean region spelling out that particular letter’s author’s impressions of God. God no longer speaks to anyone directly.
But this God “so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Even still, this God also has a condemnation clause for all who do not believe: “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18, KJV)
Now, while I can accept the whole “free will” thing, I still don’t believe that grants God a “get out of spitefulness free” card. Sure, we have the choice which way to go, but how can a God be truly called “loving” if He still insists on condemning all those who oppose Him? Where is the forgiveness that Jesus preached as The Word of God?
So, what I see, and I freely admit I am no Biblical scholar, is a lot of talk about a loving God, but not a whole lot of evidence to that effect. It may not represent one of Newton meter’s “logical contradictions”, but it should be fairly evident, based on the responses so far, that this inconsistency between word and deed in the presentation of God plays a significant role in the dismissal of the Bible as a whole.
Thank you, Darwin, for a very eloquent, well reasoned post. You’ve hit that nail squarely on the head.
I’m not sure such teaching even go against Yahweh. Think about it: When God tested Abraham by telling him to sacrifice his son, Abraham didn’t even think twice about obeying. There was no conflict, no internal diaglog, no “Does my supposedly non-child-sacrificing God suddenly want a child sacrifice or have I gone stark raving mad?” No, it was, yes, sir, right away, sir, one fresh child sacrifice coming right up, sir. Yeah, God supposedly stopped him this time…
… but what about Jephthah? According to Judges 11:30-40, Jephthah promised God that, if he “delivered the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” So God helped Jephthah whoop the Ammonites, and when he got home his daughter greeted him at the door. And did Jephthah say, “Whoops, God would never want my daughter as a burnt offering, I better look around for a goat or something”? No, he gave her two months to mourn because she’d never be able to grow up, get married, and raise a family, then burnt her up. And did God smite Jephthah and his family? Nope, God was oddly silent about the incident. No, in fact Jephthah and the Gileadites went on the defeat the Ephraimites and Jephthah led (or judged) Israel for six years. Where was his punishment for child sacrifice?
Tell me truthfully, was the sacrifice to Molech detestable because it involved children or because it was to a rival god?
Can you substantiate that, please? How do you know that there was no internal conflict or dialog? How do you know that Abraham had no such struggle?
It seems to me that you’re assuming an AWFUL lot about what went on in Abraham’s head.
Besides which, you’re missing the obvious. This was no ritualistic practice, and in the end, Abraham was NOT required to sacrifice his son. It was clearly meant as a learning experience for Abraham, as a way to develop his trust in Yahweh. To suggests that this means God would approve of sacrificing children to Molech… well, that would be intellectually dishonest, wouldn’t it?
What about him? The answer to your challenge can be found here and here. Besides which, it is sufficient to note that God did not command Jephthah’s actions. So, while one might use this as an example of Jephthah’s foolishness, there is no indication that God actually desired him to commit this deed.
Why do you assume that I make that assumption? I have certainly said nothing of the sort. I merely offer the suggestion that studying the Bible requires effort and diligence, due to the nature of its material. Such a claim says nothing of whether my own understanding is complete.
This appears to be another example of drawing reckless conclusions based on matters which are nowhere said.
How does one claim to intepret Shakespeare, if other people have differing intepretations? The fact that others draw differing interpretations does not mean that one should not believe oneself to be correct.
Besides which, your objection is irrelevant to the topic at hand. I merely suggest that studying the Bible requires considerable effort. Your objection – that different people who attempt exegesis can draw different conclusions – does nothing to refute my proposition. If anything, it illustrates my point, insofar as it demonstrates that exegesis does require studiously applying oneself in order to refute contrary views – or perhaps to ultimately accept them.
Once again, consider Shakespeare, or Anton Chekov, or Dostoevsky. Different scholars will have different interpretations of their work. Does this make them poor writers? Hardly; in fact, to make their work immediately comprehensible to all would be to remove much of their majesty.
Does this mean that it’s futile to interpret their work, since different scholars hold different interpretations? Not at all, and the scholars themselves would be quick to agree. To pretend that this suggest some inadequacy in the texts themselves – or by analogy, in Yahweh or the Bible – is to resort to a blatant red herring.
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. Suppose I were to say that all of those who oppose my view should be killed, their wives ravaged, their towns burnt and their children murdered. What would you think of that? Well let’s give it a try.
All christians should die, so should their children and wives. They are evil and evil must be removed from the world. They have murdered and attacked people for no reason. Kill em all. Kill men and women and babies. Fuck em. They have it coming for messing with my people (agnostics).
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.
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).
Where did that occur? From what I’ve seen, people have been answering the alleged contradictions, but that’s not the same as categorically saying that Biblical contradictioons don’t exist. (FTR, I do believe in sola scriptura, but I’m not using that as an argumen in this debate.)
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.
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.
The elders in Deuteronomy stoning responsibilities are contradicted by Jesus in the NT - I have already pointed out the passages.
Either the elders are supposed to stone people (women who aren;t virgins and disobediant sons :rolleyes:), or only non-sinners are supposed to stone people. Two very different and contradictory stances.
The elders in Deuteronomy stoning responsibilities are contradicted by Jesus in the NT - I have already pointed out the passages.
Either the elders are supposed to stone people ( women who aren’t virgins and disobediant sons :rolleyes: ), or only non-sinners are supposed to stone people. Two very different and contradictory stances.
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.
It is possible that the struggle against evil described in the Bible isn’t because God actually wants to get rid of evil - rather, he created people as fighting machines, and fighting evil is what they do natrually, without being told. Much like I can stuggle against an opponent in a game or a sport, not actually wanting to wipe that opponent off of the face of the Earth, but rather to perfect my own game.
The reason I doubt that interpretation is that the Bible does tell us things that we don’t already know - i.e. how to be a Christian. The whole reason God wrote the Bible was to got rid of all the non-Christians in the world and replace them with Christians. My descision as to whether or not I convert is always cast as a moral descision - God wants me to become Christian, and I will go to Hell if I don’t. That makes me wonder, if God’s ultimate purpose is to create Christians, couldn’t he have done it in a more efficient manner which doesn’t involve evil?
I don’t think that solves the problem. A (classically) inconsistent theory is just one that contains a contradiction.
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”.
I don’t think it is possible to address this issue in a way that you would find satisfactory. That’s fine, you don’t have to be satisfied. I think inconsistent accounts of the nature of God are probably a better reason than most to reject God, the bible, or religion in general.
Obviously, though, others do resolve this issue. Here are several ways.
The bible is true, God is what he is. If he appears both loving and not loving, then he embodies a paradox. Or we don’t understand him completely. In any case, we better damn well figure out what he wants before he gets mad.
Words and analogies fail when we speak of God. He’s not “loving” in the sense that he feels an attraction to, or a cameraderie with, or a dependence on, us. He’s like loving. Just like when we say God is the Father, we don’t mean he has a penis and fertilized all our mothers.
(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.
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.”
Personally, I find biblical contradictions interesting. And important. They are things that should be resolved internally by believers. The program of “conversion by contradiction” doesn’t work, because nearly every believer has already resolved the contradictions to their satisfaction. They don’t carry the philosophical force to convince anyone to not believe. Yet that is how they are used by atheists. It was thought at the beginning of the enlightenment that religion would just fade away and be replaced with a scientific worldview. It hasn’t happened yet, and I don’t think you can accelerate it.
dalovindj, I’m worried about you man. Here’s a chronology of bigotry:
forms false impression of beliefs or lifestyle of others
incorrectly attributes that false belief to entire group of people
judges said beliefs evil for thier foreignness
concludes that it would be a positive good to eradicate said evil beliefs from the world
discovers that believers do not relinquish beliefs easily
concludes that it would be a positive good to eradicate people who hold said evil beliefs from the world
Reality checks out at step 1. You no longer care to hear about what others believe, because you alread know what they believe. If they claim otherwise, they’re just apologists or liars.
It looks like you’re at about 4.5, maybe 5.5. That troubles me. I think you should back way up to 1, where you formed an incorrect opinion of Christianity and what the majority of Christians actually believe. I think you should post a thread called “Somebody please tell me what Christians actually believe”, or maybe even “Somebody tell my why I should give a crap what religion others follow”.
You’re on the very slippery slope that leads to the justification that an entire group of people do not deserve basic human rights based on your opinion of them.
Tell me again why religious bigotry is bad, but your religious bigotry is OK? Oh yeah, you think you’ve found the correct beliefs.
I’m not disagreeing with you here, but remember, it wasn’t just the Israelites at the time who were doing it. “Take an enemy village and kill or enslave its people.” was the standard method of dealing with war captives at the time. Every tribe and group in the area did the same thing, and every tribe and group in the area said their gods approved. Why expect the Israelites to be any different.
One of the problems, I think, when it comes to understanding the bible, is that we’re really not the intended audience. The intended audience, especially for the torah, were tribal nomadic herdsmen, and a lot of stuff that doesn’t make sense to us, things like the importance of bloodlines and the horror of adultery, or the fact that cities are almost always descibed as bad places, or the strict emphasis on honoring your parents, make sense if you look at it from that perspective.