Self-Contradictions of the Bible

[sylvan3]

When the day that the "scare tactic" actually arrives, what are you going to do about all that you have written and said about Christianity?

First, I am being honest with myself. I know what I see. I can say to you that if you are being honest with yourself and you believe the Bible, I respect that. Can you say that you respect my viewpoints?

As for your above comment, you have no objective, independent evidence that this day will come. It is a belief of yours. Why is it that in everyday life you would reject claims by people that you claimed had no evidence? For example, if you saw a product on TV that said it cured baldness, you would want to see hard evidence that it was true. If the manufacturer said, "just trust me", you would reject that, rightfully so. Why would it be different for religion? The evidence isn't there--it is based on faith. That might be fine for you--it's not for me.

[billie]

Has anyone ever been to the North Pole? Seen it for yourself? Then do you believe it's there? Why? Because most other people believe it's there? Because you read it in a book? Saw a video? All that can be faked. But everyone believes it's there. That's faith. No, I haven't seen the North Pole for myself but I have faith that it's there. I've never seen God with my physical eyes but He's way more real to me than the North Pole....does anyone know what I'm trying to say?

[Arjuous]

Chestnuts! Chestnuts! All much to easy for me to waste time on. I'm quite sure that if you put on your little thinking cap for a moment, you can come up with the solutiions to all of these.

C'mon! I BELIEVE the Bible, and I can give you far better 'contradictions' within it's text, than these silly 'pretend' contradiction you've reproduced here. I WANT A CHALLENGE!

I'm sorry; you'll just have to do MUCH BETTER or risk boring me...........

The text is clearly contradictory, if it isn't, then explain it. By explain it, I mean tell me why what I just listed, which is only 23 of the 144 contradictions in William Henry Burr's book, are not contradictions. Since you cannot, it is contradictory. And asking for a challenge when you've utterly failed to even address the point of a 'perfect book' being contradictory is even more irrational than believing something with no evidence.

As for those of you who continually use the consequence of hell as a reason for your faith, or that I should be faithful, is morally bankrupt. You are 'moral,' or at least live by a set of morals, because you fear hell. An atheist, on the other hand, is moral simply for the sake of Being moral, and not out of fear. The religious, in this case Christians, choose their actions based on a fear of damnation, whereas the atheistic operate morally with no such evil consequence.

The fact that you 'believe' something is absolutely meaningless in this argument, because your belief about anything in any other discourse with no evidence would be useless as well. Religion, as it currently exists, is the only portion of our human discourse where evidence, for whatever reason, is not necessary to the conversation. Generally, if someone says "It's my belief that God exists and he intercedes in our affairs," that's pretty much the end of the argument. We are not allowed to ask "what makes drawing ethics out of the bible different from drawing ethics out of other mythical and allegorical doctrines like the Iliad and the Odyssey." And this is a question which both must, and cannot, be truthfully answered by apologists.

Also, to comment on the assertion that I am somehow seeking rebellion out of all this, that is dramatically inaccurate, and ignorantly composed. You are operating on a presupposition that you are right, which for all its worth, should exclude you from rational conversation. Since you obviously are not correct in your assumption that I somehow am relishing in the demonic and blasphemic light of atheism, the rest of your characterization of my personal beliefs are equally unfounded. To be clear, I do not discount the possibility that God exists, I merely am conclusive in my assumption that the Christian God is not him.

[sylvan3]

Arjuous--(post #13) Very well stated.

Edited July 22, 2006 by sylvan3

[sylvan3]

Has anyone ever been to the North Pole? Seen it for yourself? Then do you believe it's there? Why? Because most other people believe it's there? Because you read it in a book? Saw a video? All that can be faked. But everyone believes it's there. That's faith. No, I haven't seen the North Pole for myself but I have faith that it's there. I've never seen God with my physical eyes but He's way more real to me than the North Pole....does anyone know what I'm trying to say?

I will admit to having faith in lots of things. But if all I had was faith, I sure wouldn't be arguing that what I had faith in was the real deal. That's what apologists do.

Edited July 22, 2006 by sylvan3

[Ovedya]

Chestnuts! Chestnuts! All much to easy for me to waste time on. I'm quite sure that if you put on your little thinking cap for a moment, you can come up with the solutiions to all of these.

C'mon! I BELIEVE the Bible, and I can give you far better 'contradictions' within it's text, than these silly 'pretend' contradiction you've reproduced here. I WANT A CHALLENGE!

I'm sorry; you'll just have to do MUCH BETTER or risk boring me...........

The text is clearly contradictory, if it isn't, then explain it. By explain it, I mean tell me why what I just listed, which is only 23 of the 144 contradictions in William Henry Burr's book, are not contradictions. Since you cannot, it is contradictory. And asking for a challenge when you've utterly failed to even address the point of a 'perfect book' being contradictory is even more irrational than believing something with no evidence.

As for those of you who continually use the consequence of hell as a reason for your faith, or that I should be faithful, is morally bankrupt. You are 'moral,' or at least live by a set of morals, because you fear hell. An atheist, on the other hand, is moral simply for the sake of Being moral, and not out of fear. The religious, in this case Christians, choose their actions based on a fear of damnation, whereas the atheistic operate morally with no such evil consequence.

The fact that you 'believe' something is absolutely meaningless in this argument, because your belief about anything in any other discourse with no evidence would be useless as well. Religion, as it currently exists, is the only portion of our human discourse where evidence, for whatever reason, is not necessary to the conversation. Generally, if someone says "It's my belief that God exists and he intercedes in our affairs," that's pretty much the end of the argument. We are not allowed to ask "what makes drawing ethics out of the bible different from drawing ethics out of other mythical and allegorical doctrines like the Iliad and the Odyssey." And this is a question which both must, and cannot, be truthfully answered by apologists.

Also, to comment on the assertion that I am somehow seeking rebellion out of all this, that is dramatically inaccurate, and ignorantly composed. You are operating on a presupposition that you are right, which for all its worth, should exclude you from rational conversation. Since you obviously are not correct in your assumption that I somehow am relishing in the demonic and blasphemic light of atheism, the rest of your characterization of my personal beliefs are equally unfounded. To be clear, I do not discount the possibility that God exists, I merely am conclusive in my assumption that the Christian God is not him.

So what are your goals for sharing this on a Christian forum? Are you seeking to understand the Christian faith, or is it your intent to show us Christians how and where it is wrong?

[Ovedya]

When the day that the "scare tactic" actually arrives, what are you going to do about all that you have written and said about Christianity?

First, I am being honest with myself. I know what I see. I can say to you that if you are being honest with yourself and you believe the Bible, I respect that. Can you say that you respect my viewpoints?

As for your above comment, you have no objective, independent evidence that this day will come. It is a belief of yours. Why is it that in everyday life you would reject claims by people that you claimed had no evidence? For example, if you saw a product on TV that said it cured baldness, you would want to see hard evidence that it was true. If the manufacturer said, "just trust me", you would reject that, rightfully so. Why would it be different for religion? The evidence isn't there--it is based on faith. That might be fine for you--it's not for me.

You use faith every day when you start your car. You have no objective evidence telling you that it will start (Unless you are in the practice of examining your engine part-by-part each time before you start it) immediately upon turning the key. You are relying upon what the manufacturer and the salespersons told you about it, and you are placing your faith in their reputations.

The evidence in the Bible, and the long-established evidence of its truth, its testimony, and its accuracy regarding historical places, events, and fulfilled prophecies (And not disregarding the hundreds of millions of lives changed by it.) are evidence enough for me to place my faith in it, and in God.

[sylvan3]

Chestnuts! Chestnuts! All much to easy for me to waste time on. I'm quite sure that if you put on your little thinking cap for a moment, you can come up with the solutiions to all of these.

C'mon! I BELIEVE the Bible, and I can give you far better 'contradictions' within it's text, than these silly 'pretend' contradiction you've reproduced here. I WANT A CHALLENGE!

I'm sorry; you'll just have to do MUCH BETTER or risk boring me...........

The text is clearly contradictory, if it isn't, then explain it. By explain it, I mean tell me why what I just listed, which is only 23 of the 144 contradictions in William Henry Burr's book, are not contradictions. Since you cannot, it is contradictory. And asking for a challenge when you've utterly failed to even address the point of a 'perfect book' being contradictory is even more irrational than believing something with no evidence.

As for those of you who continually use the consequence of hell as a reason for your faith, or that I should be faithful, is morally bankrupt. You are 'moral,' or at least live by a set of morals, because you fear hell. An atheist, on the other hand, is moral simply for the sake of Being moral, and not out of fear. The religious, in this case Christians, choose their actions based on a fear of damnation, whereas the atheistic operate morally with no such evil consequence.

The fact that you 'believe' something is absolutely meaningless in this argument, because your belief about anything in any other discourse with no evidence would be useless as well. Religion, as it currently exists, is the only portion of our human discourse where evidence, for whatever reason, is not necessary to the conversation. Generally, if someone says "It's my belief that God exists and he intercedes in our affairs," that's pretty much the end of the argument. We are not allowed to ask "what makes drawing ethics out of the bible different from drawing ethics out of other mythical and allegorical doctrines like the Iliad and the Odyssey." And this is a question which both must, and cannot, be truthfully answered by apologists.

Also, to comment on the assertion that I am somehow seeking rebellion out of all this, that is dramatically inaccurate, and ignorantly composed. You are operating on a presupposition that you are right, which for all its worth, should exclude you from rational conversation. Since you obviously are not correct in your assumption that I somehow am relishing in the demonic and blasphemic light of atheism, the rest of your characterization of my personal beliefs are equally unfounded. To be clear, I do not discount the possibility that God exists, I merely am conclusive in my assumption that the Christian God is not him.

So what are your goals for sharing this on a Christian forum? Are you seeking to understand the Christian faith, or is it your intent to show us Christians how and where it is wrong?

For the sake of discussion, let's say the answer to the second question were "yes". Wouldn't it then follow that it would be worthwhile for others who read this to see how good your answers are? I thought apologetics was defending the faith. Actually, I have seen some good answers from your side, although I might not agree with them.

[Ovedya]

Chestnuts! Chestnuts! All much to easy for me to waste time on. I'm quite sure that if you put on your little thinking cap for a moment, you can come up with the solutiions to all of these.

C'mon! I BELIEVE the Bible, and I can give you far better 'contradictions' within it's text, than these silly 'pretend' contradiction you've reproduced here. I WANT A CHALLENGE!

I'm sorry; you'll just have to do MUCH BETTER or risk boring me...........

The text is clearly contradictory, if it isn't, then explain it. By explain it, I mean tell me why what I just listed, which is only 23 of the 144 contradictions in William Henry Burr's book, are not contradictions. Since you cannot, it is contradictory. And asking for a challenge when you've utterly failed to even address the point of a 'perfect book' being contradictory is even more irrational than believing something with no evidence.

As for those of you who continually use the consequence of hell as a reason for your faith, or that I should be faithful, is morally bankrupt. You are 'moral,' or at least live by a set of morals, because you fear hell. An atheist, on the other hand, is moral simply for the sake of Being moral, and not out of fear. The religious, in this case Christians, choose their actions based on a fear of damnation, whereas the atheistic operate morally with no such evil consequence.

The fact that you 'believe' something is absolutely meaningless in this argument, because your belief about anything in any other discourse with no evidence would be useless as well. Religion, as it currently exists, is the only portion of our human discourse where evidence, for whatever reason, is not necessary to the conversation. Generally, if someone says "It's my belief that God exists and he intercedes in our affairs," that's pretty much the end of the argument. We are not allowed to ask "what makes drawing ethics out of the bible different from drawing ethics out of other mythical and allegorical doctrines like the Iliad and the Odyssey." And this is a question which both must, and cannot, be truthfully answered by apologists.

Also, to comment on the assertion that I am somehow seeking rebellion out of all this, that is dramatically inaccurate, and ignorantly composed. You are operating on a presupposition that you are right, which for all its worth, should exclude you from rational conversation. Since you obviously are not correct in your assumption that I somehow am relishing in the demonic and blasphemic light of atheism, the rest of your characterization of my personal beliefs are equally unfounded. To be clear, I do not discount the possibility that God exists, I merely am conclusive in my assumption that the Christian God is not him.

So what are your goals for sharing this on a Christian forum? Are you seeking to understand the Christian faith, or is it your intent to show us Christians how and where it is wrong?

For the sake of discussion, let's say the answer to the second question were "yes". Wouldn't it then follow that it would be worthwhile for others who read this to see how good your answers are? I thought apologetics was defending the faith. Actually, I have seen some good answers from your side, although I might not agree with them.

I see. So if your answer were yes, then your goal here is to be the devil's advocate? Do you take pleasure in showing all us people of faith how misled we are?

[sylvan3]

So what are your goals for sharing this on a Christian forum? Are you seeking to understand the Christian faith, or is it your intent to show us Christians how and where it is wrong?

For the sake of discussion, let's say the answer to the second question were "yes". Wouldn't it then follow that it would be worthwhile for others who read this to see how good your answers are? I thought apologetics was defending the faith. Actually, I have seen some good answers from your side, although I might not agree with them.

I see. So if your answer were yes, then your goal here is to be the devil's advocate? Do you take pleasure in showing all us people of faith how misled we are?

I can assure you that the questions that I ask are of a sincere nature.

I appreciate being able to express myself, and I am interested in what and how others express themselves as well. I have opinions that are not intended to attempt to change anyone's mind as you might believe. I am basically saying, "This is what I see and feel, and I am being totally honest about it." If someone can respond in a way that shows they are sincere in what they feel, I can accept that as legitimate even if I disagree.

The reason why I couldn't be a Christian (in the classic definition of the word) is that they can't accept any beliefs different than theirs as legitimate. They are required to tell others with different beliefs that their beliefs are wrong, and that, even if the other person is being honest with himself or herself, they are still wrong. However, you lack the objective evidence to say they are wrong.

Please understand that I am referring to beliefs as opposed to behaviors. It is not OK for someone to act however they want to because it suits them. That is not my philosophy. How someone thinks, though, is a totally different thing. This is private to them. However, Christianity states that God will toss someone in hell because of how they think. Astonishingly, it doesn't even matter how someone acts. One of your defenders once stated that even Hitler would have been granted heaven if he had repented and accepted Jesus. Do you realize what that would mean? If you need elaboration on the concept, I will be happy to give it.