|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
What were the rules in that day? Since his daughters didn't leave the house, why does this negate his righteous standing? Was it considered "righteous" to offer your virgin daughters to a mob of strangers, in that day, in your increasingly peculiar view?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Was it considered "righteous" to offer your virgin daughters to a mob of strangers, in that day, in your increasingly peculiar view? That's what I asked you. Stop wasting posts that don't further the discussion. Of course it wasn't! Have you taken leave of your senses?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
It doesn't much matter what you think. What matters is an authorities ability to both forbid killing and instruct killing without there being a contradiction involved. What seems to matter to you is to defend this point, even at the cost of admitting that "god" uses men as some kind of proxy weapon against other men. Can't you see how ridiculous this appears?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
I don't have to admit God uses men as a weapon against other men. You've already accepted the Bible states as much yourself..remember? If I didn't make it clear before that I think that line of reasoning is preposterous and obviously incorrect, may I do so now? However, if we accept that it is the case for the sake of your argument for one moment, then it immediately sets up a conflict with assertions elsewhere in the bible, which say that "god is a god of love".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
An error is unintentional. We have no way of knowing, concerning some of the verses we've addressed, if the difference was unintentional or not. If it was intentional, then it isn't an error. Er, you've made an error! See 2: errorn. 1. An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from what is correct, right, or true. 2. The condition of having incorrect or false knowledge. 3. The act or an instance of deviating from an accepted code of behavior. 4. A mistake. 5. Mathematics The difference between a computed or measured value and a true or theoretically correct value. 6. Abbr. E Baseball A defensive fielding or throwing misplay by a player when a play normally should have resulted in an out or prevented an advance by a base runner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Nope. Blzebub didn't wish to answer my questions in Message 50. He chose instead to define the word inerrant. I chose not to bother with them, because they are valueless, empty questions. Here they are again:
How does the error by the song writer make God not perfect? How does the error in prices make God not perfect? How does Ezra's bad editing make God not perfect? How does Jesus showing that it is lawful to do good and to save life even on the Sabbath make God not perfect? If god is perfect, and the bible is god's word, then the bible must be inerrant (without error). If the bible is god's word, yet contains errors, then god is not perfect. You still haven't answered my implicit question in Message 69. Do you really, seriously, believe that in Lot's time (or any other time), a righteous man would offer his two daughters to a mob for the explicit purpose of gang-rape? If this is your belief, please provide evidence to support it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Before you can claim that an error in the Bible means God is not flawless, you need to connect God to the production of the Bible. No I don't. The entire premise of this thread was set out quite clearly in my first post, containing this statement from a christian:
quote: This is what the thread is supposed to be about. A clear "mission statement" which sets out the rationale for belief: the bible is the word of god, and cannot be questioned. You appear to agree with my own opinion, which is that the bible was written by men, and contains numerous errors. So I don't understand why you are arguing with me. But your position is obscured slightly by your simultaneous insistence that the errors I have pointed out aren't errors at all! The most recent defence of Lot's "righteousness" is certainly one of the most outlandish opinions I have ever seen from a religious apologist:
What we think of it today is irrelevant. In the story, Lot was not chastised for offering his daughters to the mob. The angels of God were right there with him. I think that if your argument reaches the point where it relies on an extremely unlikely (and frankly rather silly) premise, such as this suggestion of yours that in Lot's time, offering ones daughters to a rapacious mob was viewed as a righteous act, then the onus is on you to provide some evidence to support this premise, and not on me to refute it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Another possible conclusion is that the Bible is God's word but is not perfect. In that case, why do christians never describe the bible as "an imperfect transcription of god's word, containing numerous errors"? Instead, they bang on about it being "the word of god", and refer to its unquestionable authority. Anyway, at least two of you now seem to acknowledge that the writings in the bible are questionable. Which is a start, I suppose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
quote:The condition of having incorrect or false knowledge. So which verse had incorrect information?Please show evidence that the information was incorrect at the time of writing. At least one of the two different threshing-floor prices must have been incorrect at the time of writing, and indeed at any other time. The price was already paid, and is an immutable fact (whatever the price actually was).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
I haven't found a real theological contradiction yet, as opposed to a theological progression, from a contradiction list. My point wasn't necessarily to show so-called "theological" anomalies. But the kill/no-kill one still stands, IMO. If you accept the absurd defence that god was using men as a weapon against one another, then this clashes with statements that "god is a god of love".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Now when you say this clashes with statements like "God is a god of love" then you are looking at current theology, beliefs, views, etc. We aren't going to get anywhere if you can't admit what you're actually trying to debate. So, religions these days pick and choose amongst conflicting biblical verses, in order to suit their current agendas. Agendas which are actually set by the secular moral zeitgeist! It's totally lame behaviour.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Bravo!
I was brought up as a catholic, and was instructed that god doesn't change. Catholicism represents an enormous slice of "christendom".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
I'll reply to my own message, then, after such stern admonishment from On High ;-)
Support for my view that: "religions these days pick and choose amongst conflicting biblical verses, in order to suit their current agendas. Agendas which are actually set by the secular moral zeitgeist! It's totally lame behaviour." ...would include the christian crusades against the east, in the Middle Ages, Medieval "witch-hunts" carried out by the godly, and the catholic "Inquisition". None of these could be justified nowadays, purely because the secular moral zeitgeist would not allow them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
The character and nature of God changes with man. They can always point to the Bible and say see it doesn't change. Well, duh. But when we look at what the various religions present, God's character has changed. This is the expected outcome, given that god is a man-made construct. More "songs"? ;-)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024