Errors and Contradictions in the Bible

[Alexander]

Why are there so few Atheist organizations and charities? For the same reason my wife and I (even though we've been planning to for the longest time) still haven't joined our local Humanist League: Atheists and humanists just aren't joiners. It's like having an "Anarchists Union." It's almost a contradiction in terms. I for one would like to see atheists more involved in charities and in politics as atheists. But we are involved, just not under that name. My wife and I give money every year to the local rescue mission. Do we like the fact that they keep sending us religious crap in the mail? No, but I don't let my personal feelings get in the way of helping people.

[jazzypaul]

Wow, I get to respond to a few at once here...

1) Atheism isn't a religion? Hmmm, let's try this again, shall we? What are the fundamental points of religion? Faith, worship and evangelism, right?

a) Faith is believing in something without totally being able to prove it. You cannot prove that there isn't a god anymore than I can really prove that there is one. I can give you my reasons for thinking that God exists, and you can tell me why He doesn't, but at the end of the day, we'll come to an impasse. You take it on faith that there is no god. (the circular logic that the guy in that article attempted was just that. Circular logic.)

side note: that article mentions Ganesh. Is Ganesh a god? Yes. People pray to it, we know what Ganesh looks like, there is no doubting that there is a Ganesh. I can point to Ganesh in a book and say, that's Ganesh. But, do I believe that Ganesh is anything more than a "god with wooden legs?" Nope. Just because it's a god doesn't make it GOD. That's the difference.

b) When you worship something, you give it praise, you exclaim it mightier or better than all else. Look at the way Alexander drooled over a poorly written article that is not backed up by modern historical thinking! (Even the two atheists on the panel of the Jesus Seminar acknowledge the existence of a "historical Christ") Look at the fervor that is exuded trying to get something as inane as the Pledge of Allegiance modified. Anybody expending that kind of energy to banish God is, in essence, worshipping their no god in the same way that we as Christian are worshipping God when we do things that are pleasing to Him. And your efforts to demean Christianity are just as pleasing to your no god, I promise you.

c) Evangelism is taking your beliefs to the streets. Ask Alexander and his article on whether or not Christ existed about that one. Reading it and keeping it to yourself is one thing; trying to put it out there with the idea in mind that you might bring someone to your side of the table is evangelism. So, you're trying to spread your unprovable faith that there is no god through evangelism.

So, Skid, we're probably a lot more alike than you think. Our gods might be different, but make no mistake, man, we're still doing what we feel is right by our gods. You'll preach here about the virtues of Humanism, and I'll preach about My God being a mighty and powerful God who is great in all ways, to whom I am grateful for his blessings, and that I get them even though I am certainly not the best Christian on the planet, or the best human on the planet, or even my block. So, being that we are so alike, we should most certainly work on being more unified, shouldn't we? Got any Grant Green that I haven't heard yet?

B-)

[7/4]

side note: that article mentions Ganesh. Is Ganesh a god? Yes. People pray to it, we know what Ganesh looks like, there is no doubting that there is a Ganesh. I can point to Ganesh in a book and say, that's Ganesh. But, do I believe that Ganesh is anything more than a "god with wooden legs?" Nope. Just because it's a god doesn't make it GOD. That's the difference.

Dude!

Ganesh (like all those Hundu dietys) is just another of the many faces of God. Just like Jesus and many others. It's the way they see cosmos. God is everywhere, a concept that I haven't heard in the Christian world since I was in Bible class as a child.

[jazzypaul]

side note: that article mentions Ganesh.  Is Ganesh a god?  Yes.  People pray to it, we know what Ganesh looks like, there is no doubting that there is a Ganesh.  I can point to Ganesh in a book and say, that's Ganesh.  But, do I believe that Ganesh is anything more than a "god with wooden legs?"  Nope.  Just because it's a god doesn't make it GOD.  That's the difference.

Dude!

Ganesh (like all those Hundu dietys) is just another of the many faces of God. Just like Jesus and many others. It's the way they see cosmos. God is everywhere, a concept that I haven't heard in the Christian world since I was in Bible class as a child.

speak for yourself. I totally believe in the idea that God is everywhere. He's everywhere that you can find unadulterated joy: In Ronnie Foster's solo on It's Your Thing, in the roar of an old Vette when you step on the gas, in the sky when you can see stars for miles and miles, in the fields when you see flowers in colors you didn't know existed...

The way that the hindi dieties had been described to me (by a hindi) was much along the same line as the catholic saints: there is one big god that we all know and love, and then you pray to certain deities for certain things. That would make Ganesh his own bad self, among a crowded field of other dieties.

[take5]

Faith is believing in something without totally being able to prove it. You cannot prove that there isn't a god anymore than I can really prove that there is one. I can give you my reasons for thinking that God exists, and you can tell me why He doesn't, but at the end of the day, we'll come to an impasse. You take it on faith that there is no god. (the circular logic that the guy in that article attempted was just that. Circular logic.)

What is your stance on magic leprachauns? I personally believe in magic leprechauns. I can give you my reasons for thinking that magic leprechauns exists, and you can tell me why they don't, but at the end of the day, we'll come to an impasse. You take it on faith that there are no magic leprechauns.

If this seems silly to you, understand that asking someone to prove the non-existence of something is absurd because you cannot prove the non-existance of magic leprechauns.

When you worship something, you give it praise, you exclaim it mightier or better than all else. Look at the way Alexander drooled over a poorly written article that is not backed up by modern historical thinking! (Even the two atheists on the panel of the Jesus Seminar acknowledge the existence of a "historical Christ") Look at the fervor that is exuded trying to get something as inane as the Pledge of Allegiance modified. Anybody expending that kind of energy to banish God is, in essence, worshipping their no god in the same way that we as Christian are worshipping God when we do things that are pleasing to Him. And your efforts to demean Christianity are just as pleasing to your no god, I promise you.

You can't be serious. Do people expect articles and pledges to save their soul, help their spirits, or what-have-you? The fact that you're likening passion for faith exposes your own disrespect for logic, faith, or both.

Evangelism is taking your beliefs to the streets. Ask Alexander and his article on whether or not Christ existed about that one. Reading it and keeping it to yourself is one thing; trying to put it out there with the idea in mind that you might bring someone to your side of the table is evangelism. So, you're trying to spread your unprovable faith that there is no god through evangelism.

We're having a conversation. Stop projecting. Evangelism is spreading ideas and trying to get people to convert or conform. This is different than discussion, debate, and sharing information. I feel sorry for you if you can't see the difference.

Finally, likening Humanism to Christianity is equally misleading. Humanism is just a catch-all term to describe a way of thinking. Is that all Christianity is? I've been led to believe it's much more.

[7/4]

side note: that article mentions Ganesh.  Is Ganesh a god?  Yes.  People pray to it, we know what Ganesh looks like, there is no doubting that there is a Ganesh.  I can point to Ganesh in a book and say, that's Ganesh.  But, do I believe that Ganesh is anything more than a "god with wooden legs?"  Nope.  Just because it's a god doesn't make it GOD.  That's the difference.

Dude!

Ganesh (like all those Hundu dietys) is just another of the many faces of God. Just like Jesus and many others. It's the way they see cosmos. God is everywhere, a concept that I haven't heard in the Christian world since I was in Bible class as a child.

speak for yourself. I totally believe in the idea that God is everywhere. He's everywhere that you can find unadulterated joy: In Ronnie Foster's solo on It's Your Thing, in the roar of an old Vette when you step on the gas, in the sky when you can see stars for miles and miles, in the fields when you see flowers in colors you didn't know existed...

The way that the hindi dieties had been described to me (by a hindi) was much along the same line as the catholic saints: there is one big god that we all know and love, and then you pray to certain deities for certain things. That would make Ganesh his own bad self, among a crowded field of other dieties.

I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on Hinduism, but like any religion, there are often many interpretations.

Good to hear that you see and hear God everywhere, most Christians I know have never mention the bliss of the living moment.

[jazzypaul]

Faith is believing in something without totally being able to prove it. You cannot prove that there isn't a god anymore than I can really prove that there is one. I can give you my reasons for thinking that God exists, and you can tell me why He doesn't, but at the end of the day, we'll come to an impasse. You take it on faith that there is no god. (the circular logic that the guy in that article attempted was just that. Circular logic.)

What is your stance on magic leprachauns? I personally believe in magic leprechauns. I can give you my reasons for thinking that magic leprechauns exists, and you can tell me why they don't, but at the end of the day, we'll come to an impasse. You take it on faith that there are no magic leprechauns.

If this seems silly to you, understand that asking someone to prove the non-existence of something is absurd because you cannot prove the non-existance of magic leprechauns.

Hey, if you want to believe in magic leprechauns, who am I to stop you? Revel in your faith, dude.

When you worship something, you give it praise, you exclaim it mightier or better than all else. Look at the way Alexander drooled over a poorly written article that is not backed up by modern historical thinking! (Even the two atheists on the panel of the Jesus Seminar acknowledge the existence of a "historical Christ") Look at the fervor that is exuded trying to get something as inane as the Pledge of Allegiance modified. Anybody expending that kind of energy to banish God is, in essence, worshipping their no god in the same way that we as Christian are worshipping God when we do things that are pleasing to Him. And your efforts to demean Christianity are just as pleasing to your no god, I promise you.

You can't be serious. Do people expect articles and pledges to save their soul, help their spirits, or what-have-you? The fact that you're likening passion for faith exposes your own disrespect for logic, faith, or both.

Does anyone expect an article or pledge to save a soul? Of course not, and I wasn't even going there. And passion and faith are not one in the same, but passion and worship are kind of intrinsically linked. Without passion, worship is just lip service, and with it, it is a very powerful thing. Your worship of no god is indeed a quite powerful thing. It's done some good things (keeping religion out of the public sector, for one...), just as the worship of the Judeo-Christian God by his followers has done some good things as well. The only logic that my ideas don't fit is a logic that bends and sways to fit your viewpoint. Your whole take on greed proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Evangelism is taking your beliefs to the streets. Ask Alexander and his article on whether or not Christ existed about that one. Reading it and keeping it to yourself is one thing; trying to put it out there with the idea in mind that you might bring someone to your side of the table is evangelism. So, you're trying to spread your unprovable faith that there is no god through evangelism.

We're having a conversation. Stop projecting. Evangelism is spreading ideas and trying to get people to convert or conform. This is different than discussion, debate, and sharing information. I feel sorry for you if you can't see the difference.

In a debate, you are trying to share your side of the issue, whilst trying to either pull the other side to your side, or the people watching in the audience to your side. That's pretty much the same thing as your very own definition of evangelism. Yes, there is some discussion and sharing of differing of viewpoints going on here, but you've been far too passionate about your ideas to simply call it a discussion. You're trying to disprove and discredit Christianity. And for what? Certainly not for simply the fun of doing it. Even from a humanist point of view, it certainly wins you no points to break the spirit of a person by discrediting their faith, right? So, what's the only other reason that you would bring up the issue with as much venom as you've mustered? I can't think of any other reason than atheistic evangelism...trying to convince others to join you and your point of view.

And given what others have said about atheism in this discussion, isn't the better plan of action to sit back and laugh at us silly religious types? Instead, you jump up and down whining like a little girl who just got her Barbie taken away from her about the evils of Christianity. The same way that Jerry Falwell does when things don't go his way. And while Jerry Falwell is an embarrasment to America and Christianity both in his fundametalism, he is what, again? Oh, that's right, he's an evangelist.

Finally, likening Humanism to Christianity is equally misleading.  Humanism is just a catch-all term to describe a way of thinking.  Is that all Christianity is?  I've been led to believe it's much more.

I never said that the ideas were alike at all. You do know the english language, do you not? I said that we were alike because we both had faith, both worship and both evangelize. I never said that our belief systems were even remotely close. You got any Grant Green that I haven't heard before? B-)

[Shrdlu]

Tell me, Shrdlu, have you ever studied philosophy as an academic discipline? Now, when I refer to philosophy, I do not simply mean to the differences between Christianity and the world's other religions. I mean epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and ethics. If you had, I doubt that you would display so little compassion for those with different beliefs as well as so much arrogance in the primacy of your faith.

I really do not have anything against any religion (including Christianity) insofar as that religion preaches tolerance of those with different beliefs. That said, I am extremely wary of organized religion. As for contradictions in the Bible, as I stated before, I know plenty of Christians who accept that such errors exist with unshaken faith because they realize that the Bible can NOT be the literal word of God. Your suggestion that people approach the Bible with a humble heart not looking for errors is ridiculous. There are many Christian theologists who seek inconsistencies in the Bible with an open mind because they are interested in the TRUTH. As Jesus said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

You started this thread, Shrdlu, so if you are interested in its vitality why don't you being by explaining all of the contradictions presented in the two websites to which 7/4 and I provided links? I, though, have to agree with CS500 that there are far more interesting things to read.

No, philosophy, as a separate subject, is not my bag. My training has been math, music and Bible.

Sorry if I appear to be arrogant. I am not arrogant, but the preaching of the gospel is often mistakenly taken as arrogance. I do not intend to offend. And I do have compassion on those who have not trusted Jesus as Saviour. I care very much about everyone. If I did not care, I would not publish the gospel. It would be reprehensible of me if I hid the wonderful gospel under a bushel basket.

As I said in another thread, I have limited time to post, and there is no way that I could find enough time to discuss all the supposed contradictions in the Bible. Sorry, I'm not deliberately ignoring you. If this appears to be rude on my part, then please forgive me. I'll do the best I can as time permits.

Re tolerance, we that are saved do tolerate those of other beliefs and are harmless toward them. One must distinguish between speaking out against a religion and hating those in it. I dislike all religions, but God commands me to be as nice as possible to all people. There are very few saved people living near me, but I do my best to be a good neighbor to all, no matter what their religion, race, etc. But I'm not going to stop preaching the gospel. As Paul said, "woe unto me if I preach not the gospel."

[Shrdlu]

Okay, time for me to back out of this thread...and time to never look at it again either.

Discussions of religion have always made me angry. No, furious. I just have little patience for the brainwashed masses who have been exposed to Christian hatred, hypocrisy, racism & hate (yes, hate, I've known quite a few real violent Christian assholes in my day).

Organized religion is BULLSHIT. Thinking that The Bible was written by otherworldy hands is BULLSHIT. Believing that you could commit multiple homicides and then ask Christ for forgiveness and be saved (the ultimate "get out of jail free card") is BULLSHIT. Let's face it, as far as I'M concerned....this whole wonderful experience of being a "God Fearing" individual is BULLSHIT.

...and what a sick fucking phrase that is...GOD FEARING...Oh yeah, where can I sign up for that? No Thanks.

Sorry if I've pissed anyone off...if you don't like this post...then ignore it...or have someone delete. It doesn't matter because I'm sure I'll be struck by lightning any minute.

Well I don't hate anyone.

Re the multiple homicides, do you actually know anyone who's saved and has committed multiple homicides? I have never killed anyone, and I have no intention of ever doing so. I hope I never do. But, God will forgive all sin: "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (I John 1:7)

As I've said many times, I am not in any organized religion.

Fear is a whole topic unto itself. Briefly, fear of just authority is very healthy. One should fear parents, school principals, civil authorities, and, above all, God. That is, fear punishment if you step out of line. Without that, you have chaos in the home, school, society, and the whole earth. The stupid governments in many countries have moved to remove good punishment from homes, schools and from the law enforcement agencies, and the results of this are plain to see.

I'm not talking about fear of being mugged, or fear of a drunken Dad who beats up the kids at home. Things like that are awful. I'm talking about fear of just punishment.

We should all definitely fear God. He can cause an earthquake, or a volcano to erupt. He is infinitely powerful. Fear of God will lead a person to turn to him and ask for forgiveness, and God is so loving and merciful that he will pardon all of one's sins as a free gift. When one gets saved, one has a loving Heavenly Father who looks after all needs. You can't ask for more than that.

My own Dad was a loving man. He was a great father. He would punish me if I misbehaved, but he seldom had to do so, as I tried my best to obey him, fearing what would happen if I did not. Being a loving parent involves punishing the kids at times, and God is no different.

I repeat, fear is healthy. It will make you be careful what you do.

[JSngry]

I prefer respect to fear.

Now, whether or not you need to go through fear to get to respect is a question with no one absolute answer, I think. But respect is motivated out of love, and fear is motivated out of a self-ish desire not to get your butt whupped, literally or figuratively. Love grows a person, fear shrinks them.

Which do you think is the healthier motivator?

(and btw - I was taught as a child that "fearing God" did indeed mean respect and love. The word has many different meanings apparently. Nuance and all that stuff.)

[JSngry]

God is everywhere, a concept that I haven't heard in the Christian world since I was in Bible class as a child.

Yeah, they told me that too, and I BELIEVED them. They told me that God loves everybody no matter what they do, who they are, or what color their skin is. I BELIEVED that too.

Then when you get older and go out into the "real world", you find out that, well, ok, maybe it's true, but it's not really relevant any more, that what God's all about and what we're all about are two different things, that all that kid stuff was good in theory, but it won't work in the "real world".

Well, I DIDN'T believe that!

Don't tell a kid something you don't want them to follow through on into adulthood, because every so often there's going to be one too dumb to realize that you're supposed to get disillusioned and just "settle", or that that stuff they told you as a kid was just "idealism".

My parents and relatives always used to ask me where I got all these "crazy" notions about God and all those "wacky" ideaas about joy and human equality and all that "liberal" stuff. "In church", I'd tell them in all seriousness. Flummoxed, they were! Verily!

Myself, I see the rise in reactionary fundamentalism as a response to the, uh.... "discomfort" that a segment of society feels about the logical consequences of confronting the ideologically evolving revelations from the notions of eternal omnipresent joy and the universal equality of ALL humans in relation to the creator/creative.

Don't like the graduates? Change the curriculum...

Edited August 26, 2004 by JSngry

[JSngry]

the revelation that toughing your genitals feels good.

Toughing? OUCH!

OUCH! InDEED!

[Jim Alfredson]

Holy shit this site is funny!

The Brick Testament

[Joe G]

Hey look! Chuck Nessa on the corner!

[Jim Alfredson]

HAHA!

[Brownian Motion]

Shrdlu wrote: Re the multiple homicides, do you actually know anyone who's saved and has committed multiple homicides?

Former Governor Bush of Texas, who claims to be saved, could have intervened in the state killing of numerous people during his six years in office. That he chose not to, at the least, makes him complicit in state-sanctioned homicide.

[7/4]

Shrdlu wrote: Re the multiple homicides, do you actually know anyone who's saved and has committed multiple homicides?

Former Governor Bush of Texas, who claims to be saved, could have intervened in the state killing of numerous people during his six years in office. That he chose not to, at the least, makes him complicit in state-sanctioned homicide.

and then there's that nasty Iraq thingie too.

[Chrome]

Re the multiple homicides, do you actually know anyone who's saved and has committed multiple homicides?

Does Rev. Jim Jones count? (I'm not sure of the difference between "born again" and "saved," but wasn't he at least the former?)

[Noj]

Somehow I doubt Reverend Jim Jones would be taken seriously in his bid for absolution from sin. Sincerity would be requisite, que no?

[jazzypaul]

Somehow I doubt Reverend Jim Jones would be taken seriously in his bid for absolution from sin. Sincerity would be requisite, que no?

yeppers.

[Chrome]

Actually, I would think the "sincerity" test would be the one he passed ... wasn't he completely sincere about what he was doing?

[Chrome]

Anyway, I recently read something interesting on the whole idea of being saved/born again as a "get out of jail free card."

If I'm understanding correctly, there's a difference between "forgiveness" and "getting out of jail," so to speak ... that is, god can forgive you, but that doesn't eliminate the consequences of your sins here on earth ... god can forgive you, but also "support" your secular punishment.

[jazzypaul]

Chrome, you're right. Not only do you still have to deal with your consequences here, but you'll also have to deal with them in Heaven. Let's face it, I'm probably not going to be nearly as close to God as Mother Theresa or Billy Graham. There is still reward (or the lack thereof) for your actions here in heaven. As it should be.

[Jim Alfredson]

I have no use for a philosophy based on fear, guilt, and punishment.

Not to mention the whole "original sin" thing, the degredation of women, and support of racism and slavery, etc.

[jazzypaul]

degradation of women, Jim? Hopefully you can back that up with some verses, not just what people tell you to think about the Bible. I know some that you will think of, and I can refute them pretty easily...

And, where, oh, where, oh where do you find support of racism? This I've gotta see, because you are most definitely reading a different Bible than I am.