What is the biggest bible contradiction?

Sin is part of the human condition by way of Adam's original sin. Actual, personal sin is not, but we are terribly predisposed to it because of original sin. I am thinking that fundementalist christians have strayed from the notion of original sin and infant baptism, and consequently may have fiddled with some of their doctrine on human sinfulness...not sure though.How do you know there hasn't been a person who has not sinned?

Hi, anastasia.I'm just repeating traditional Christian doctrine (at least traditional Protestant doctrine). Christ's sacrifice was necessary for everyone's salvation, no exceptions. Everyone is a sinner, no exceptions.At least that is the conservative Baptist doctrine.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

I was going to agree with you, till this came up;

---

We may agree on that point. I'm familiar with those kinds of tactics, by Christians of all stripes aimed at "how to witness to" (insert religion here). I agree that they are generally not ethical. The reason I think is the honesty factor. The practice seems OK with me if both people are open about where they stand. It seems not OK with me if the "witnesser" really tries to convince the other person that they are something they are not.So I think we agree on that point. The "special indulgency" is not OK, and the protestant/catholic Mary thing is not OK if the protestant is doing it with the Catholic thinking he's another Catholic. (btw, I intended it as an example where the catholic knew the protestant was protestant, and was as such OK - the Protestant wasn't going against his religion any more than I am when I tell my mother not to worry about going to Hell since Jesus wouldn't send her to Hell (my mom knows I don't believe in Hell, nor Jesus).Do we agree on that? That it comes down to whether or not the position of the speaker is known?

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

Actual, personal sin is not, but we are terribly predisposed to it because of original sin. ....
How do you know there hasn't been a person who has not sinned?

---

So people are terribly disposed to it, and thus are almost certain to sin and thus damn themselves? I don't think that's the Catholic doctrine. It sounds an awful lot like the heretical Pelagian Christians.Instead, I think the catholic doctrine is a permanent stain of sin, present before birth, before we can do anything that would be a sin, that damns everyone regardless of what they do. Otherwise, there would be no point in bapizing a baby, since a baby certainly can't sin until he or she can make choices. Infant Baptism is to remove the stain of original sin, like the quicker-picker-upper.CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin

I believe in respecting people equally, but not doctrines. There is a reason why the religion which I consider to have an absolute lock on the truth is the same as that I which I embrace as my own. It is impossible for me to embrace equally opposing views, and really without purpose.I am not insulting any scriptures and interpretations that have any authority, but those which have been proven to have no authority whatsoever, and are a purposeful misrepresentation of the text. If I tell you 'in the beginning was the clam' do I have some authority?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

I believe in respecting people equally, but not doctrines.

---

I agree. I think that the right seems to miss the first part of your sentence often, and the left seems to miss the second part often.I agree that all doctrines are not equally valid. It seems that we have come to different conclusions as far as which ones are sound enough to be followed and obeyed. I was rasied Catholic and have found that people often mollycoddle the faith they were raised with, and often don't even know what the other faiths say (including other Christianities). If you indeed have investigated the others, and compared the reasons to think each could be true (including the history of how we got the Bible and the full history of Christianity), and still have come to a different conclusion than I, so be it.I too find a gradient of credibility between the different Christianities, though that gradient probably seems much flatter to me that it does to you. Similarly, I would find it a funny coincidence if the best supported religion happened to be the one I was born into. It's possible, but it would seem more likely to be that I just had incorporated it, and hadn't really done my homework yet. To each his own.Take care-P. S. I'll likely be out for a couple days, and since this thread is at 230, it'll probably be closed when I get back. I'm sure we'll talk on some other thread.Edited by Equinox, : added note.

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Everyone is sinful, no exceptions!We all need Christ's sacrifice to save us from our own fallen nature. But fallen 'nature' means that we are sinful by 'nature' even before we have personally sinned. We are born guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve.I am sure you are right about how you said it, but again, I think Baptist doctrine on original sin is a little different from the Catholic.

OK. Yes, but just as often they neglect their own faith and don't even study what it teaches before they go and decide it doesn't make sense. That's a lot there. I could study the Bible and christian history for a lifetime and still not know everything, so I could not possibly leave my beliefs open-ended till I was finished. When it comes to faith, there may not be an 'educated' guess.What I was trying to say, though, is that there are groups of 'christians' who have not made an honest theological attempt at reconciling conflicting scriptures. They have openly changed the text of the scriptures, or proposed doctrines (like polytheism) that only lead to contradictions elsewhere. Since a main tenet of christianity is that considers the Bible the ultimate and final Word on the subject, such groups as Mormons and JW's stand out even to denominations that otherwise would oppose each other.

I think the manner of His death gives us the necessary evidence to believe He did, in fact, say those radical things. In fact, I am despised for actually believing those radical things.That's why they crucified Him. They didn't hate Him for speaking nicely. He told the truth! And few want to hear that. It is an offense to our own interpretation of reality, which we hold dear to our hearts more than any treasure.I said:

quote:

---

There is only Christ, and one antichrist.

---

And you replied:My point exactly! The Antichrist is not a person Equinox. It is a spirit. There is a true prophet; the Holy Spirit of Truth that is of God, and the false prophet (the Spirit of antichrist).A Holy Trinity, and an unholy trinity.The devil is a master imposter... he cannot create truth, he can only copy the real thing.Now today, when people talk about the 'quote/unquote' antichrist, they typically are meaning the 'one world' dictator who will dominate as prophesied. But even this man is only an incarnation of the same spirit of deception. He will be an incarnation, as jesus was an incarnation, only of a different spirit. He will be Satan incarnate.And that doesn't mean he will appear to be an evil person. He will appear as an angel of light! He will be a savior in the minds of millions.

May I ask how you determine that an interpretation has authority worthy of respect or, conversely, has been "proven" to have no authority and is a "purposeful misrepresentation"?Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given.

If we are flawed, then you must presuppose a correct state of being. You cannot be flawed as a presupposition. We are either correct, or we are not!And if we are not correct, then where do we look to find an example of correction? Well... Your quite right!
Well put Ringo.It all revolves around being able to understand that God was willing to sacrifice His own (human) life, in order to show that this life was not all that we should cling to. That real life is something greater.But in order for Him to do that, he must have been privy to knowledge that only He posessed.He knew He would rise again, and the human side of Him was willing to submit to the Father as an example to us. He proved who he was by not using His divine power for this human life.He gave confidence and proof to those of us with little faith, that reality was more than meets the eye.Ironically, He opened our eyes, to what lie beyond our eyes.But it isn't enough for some...Jesus told a parable that ended with these words: Luke 16: 31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Not at all. We can recognize a flaw by recognizing a way to improve it. There is no reason to assume that the sum total of possible improvements adds up to "perfection" or "correctness". We can look to Jesus as an example of "better", not necessarily an example of "best" or "perfect". Which makes Him more than human (or less than human).Which is where the contradiction lies.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Not to mention that there are many precursors of Antichrist, just as there were many prophets who paved the way for Christ.

I used Equinox's word 'authority' in my post. I meant to ask him the same question.The interpretations that I have mentioned being 'purposeful misrepresentations' are specifically 'The Translator's New Testament' and 'The New Testament in an Improved Version' both Jehova's Witness publications, and I would not hesitate to include all JW Bibles. There are also situations where the Oneness Pentecostals have altered the gospels and presented a false translation in an effort to 'prove' their theology.I can provide more specifics if needed.

Which is where the contradiction lies.[/qs]There is a contradiction, Ringo, But there is only one Biblical way to reconcile it, and that is the Trinity doctrine. It may seen flawed, but anything else is impossible to maintain through reason or textual analysis.