What is the biggest bible contradiction?

We can recognize a flaw by recognizing a way to improve it.

Relative to what?

Are you not forced by this way of thinking to use the unimproved unit (flaw) as a means of measuring the better (or more correct) position of the unit?

In terms of morailty and personal responsibility, you are using the least common denominator as your absolute by which to measure your own position.

That whole process is better known as worship. It is keeping always before our mind, the absolute by which we conceive our own place. It is the same way an aircraft uses instruments in the fog.

There is no reason to assume that the sum total of possible improvements adds up to "perfection" or "correctness".

There is also no reason to assume that it does not, other than the observation of the fact that our natural world seems to ultimately be in a state of increasing decay and disorder. But this does not bode well for any assertion that an improvement (as assumed to be increasing order) reflects the underlying trend of the natural universe.

Which makes Him more than human (or less than human). Which is where the contradiction lies.

What you call a contradiction, I see as a revelation to the desire of my inner most being; that even in the face of misery and decay, order will prevail.

It's not a contradiction in the larger sense (eternal). It is only a contradiction in time and finitude.

What you see as human, I see as death. What you see as inhuman, I see as the real humanity that my heart longs for. And Jesus is the light of my life. Without Him, I am only a beast.

Feel free to remain a beast (you certainly are free to do so), and confine yourself to being better than whoever you think is inferior to you. I intend to encourage those who are in the same shoes as myself that they need not stay in that condition because the creator has come and opened the door to the eternal life.

Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

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

Yes, precisely! And the precursors (prophets) of antichrist are all of the same spirit (untruth disguised as enlightenment).

Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

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.

Please pardon my intrusion...

It's not a contradiction in that sense Anastasia. It is a paradox. From a partial perspective (finite) it appears contradictory. In the whole [or holy] perspective it is complete and not only harmonious, but also glorious!

anastasia writes: There is a contradiction, Ringo, But there is only one Biblical way to reconcile it....

Why do you feel obligated to "reconcile" it? Why not just say a contradiction is a contradiction? (Especially when the reconciliation requires making up a phoney-baloney extra-Biblical doctrine. All you're doing is piling contradiction on contradiction.)

---

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

Ringo writes: So you're using the Catholic definition of heresy to decide who is a Christian

No, I am using the Universal description of Christianity to decide who is a heretic.

scottness writes: We can recognize a flaw by recognizing a way to improve it. Relative to what?

Relative to the status quo.

Are you not forced by this way of thinking to use the unimproved unit (flaw) as a means of measuring the better (or more correct) position of the unit?

Of course. Doesn't it make sense to use a standard that exists - however flawed - rather than a "correct" standard that doesn't exist?

In terms of morailty and personal responsibility, you are using the least common denominator as your absolute by which to measure your own position.

I'm not using any "absolute". (Please erase that word from your dictionary.)

I'm using my current position as the jumping-off point for where I want to go.

... this does not bode well for any assertion that an improvement (as assumed to be increasing order) reflects the underlying trend of the natural universe.

I never said anything about an "underlying trend of the natural universe". I said that we have flaws that can be fixed.

Feel free to remain a beast....

Thanks for granting permission. I think I'll take you up on it. :D

... and confine yourself to being better than whoever you think is inferior to you.

No. I only compare myself to myself. I try to be better than I was yesterday.

---

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

anastasia writes: So you're using the Catholic definition of heresy to decide who is a Christian No, I am using the Universal description of Christianity to decide who is a heretic.

Then we're going to need a new thread for you to explain to us what that "Universal description" is. :)

---

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

I don't find the Trinity a contradiction, Scottness. It is an harmonious reconciliation of apparent Biblical contradiction. I can't even say I find the Bible contradictory, because I understand Trinity. But at face value, the passages about Jesus being human, and then, about His divinity, appear contradictory, and they can not be resolved without some sort of extra-biblical theology.

And by extra-biblical, I mean; the Bible does not expressly mention a Trinity.

Ringo writes: Then we're going to need a new thread for you to explain to us what that "Universal description" is.

We don't need a new thread, Ringo. The universal description of christianity is a monotheistic Trinitarian view.

It is not that hard to decide who has departed from this. :)

anastasia writes: The universal description of christianity is a monotheistic Trinitarian view.

Nonsense.

Your definition of heresy is circular: anybody who doesn't agree with your definition of heresy is a heretic. Yet another contradiction. :)

---

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

Ringo writes: Why not just say a contradiction is a contradiction?

Because many of us take the Bible more seriously than that? And we believe there is an intention in the contradiction that is worthy of discovery?

Ringo writes: Your definition of heresy is circular: anybody who doesn't agree with your definition of heresy is a heretic. Yet another contradiction.

I have not defined heresy, I have defined christianity. Do you have a definition for either that is better?

anastasia writes: ... we believe there is an intention in the contradiction that is worthy of discovery?

Nobody said anything against "intention in the contradiction". The fact is that the contradictions are there, even if you try to deny some of them and give cutsey names to some of them.

A contradiction is a contradiction, regardless of any intent behind it.

I have not defined heresy, I have defined christianity. Do you have a definition for either that is better?

Of course, but not in this thread. ;)

---

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

are you back, ringo?

please say you are.

anastasia, I asked for criteria, not examples. Again: how do you determine that an interpretation has authority worthy of respect or, conversely, has been "proven" to have no authority and is a "purposeful misrepresentation"?