Bible errors - Best ones and why
Offline Ciao!
Hello everyone, my very first post in this great forum. I enjoyed many threads and a lot of your professional answers!
I am an atheist, humanist, and I'm writing an essay on these matters.
One of the chapters is about errors in the bible.
What I'm trying to do is to assemble a minimum number of them, very clear, relatively simple, and unattackable. They must be not confutable, but by silly rationalizations!
I have ideas but also a few doubts, and here I'm looking for your competence to sharpen my thesis.
Like it? Hope so!
Let's go. Here are the areas, among the others, I' think I will cover:
- Contraddictions
Creation story - is Gn 1 and 3 (edit: ops, 2) really contraddictory, or is it the same account stated from different points of view (as apologists claim)?
Creation story 2 - Adam & Eve didn't die. On the base of the original hebrew word (which was it?), may we be sure that 'spiritual death' is no more than rationalization?
Decalogue - 3 versions, no probs here I guess.
Jesus genealogy - Apologists claim that luke's is that of Mary. Is it defendable?
Resurrection - accounts are irreconciliable, no probs here.
Punishment onto next generations - Deut. 24:16 vs 1 commandment
Love god but fear god - Can it be reconcilied?
- Absurd science
Genesis again - Plants before light: I heard smone say 'the light was God itself'. Does it make sense?
Universe time-span - Is the day/night story explainable by saying that 'God's days spans millennia/ages'?
Flood - No space for all animals (given they were inside someway), ok. It is considered a 'metaphor' nowdays, but didn't apostles/Paul cite it as true, somewhere?
Ruminant rabbits, bat as birds?
- Spurious passages
Verginity - Matthew beginning. What about Luke's?
The 'let he who is without sin...' incident - Isn't it a later addiction?
Resurrection - Mark end. Any other?
Trinity - Comma Jovanneus and Mt 28:19. Plus can I just state that the whole concept was extraneous to earliest communities?
- Violence and immorality
A lot! - Basically 2 or 3 described ones, to be followed by a long list of verses. I shouldn't have any prob here. 
Here it is. Now share your knowledge with me if you care, I'm waiting for your comments, suggestions and anything else you think I shouldn't miss!
Thank you,
WK
- Login to post comments
When did God created bacteria and other microbian life form?
Oh, I forgot, they haven't heard of those back then. But i'd be delighted to hear some tortuous theology. So if the behemoth is the dinosaurs, where are bacterias in the bible? After all, they are a major form of life on this planet.
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Don't forget the first humans Adam and Eve. Evidently they lived to be over 200! But then God got pissed and shortened our life expectancy. Abrham supposedly lived for nine centuries
It's true! Read the Bible!
LOL
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
We do already have what rook calls a small list, but it is always good to see people working at things.
I suggest you include the passage numbers as the first thing someone is going to say is, "Where? I don't remember that!"
Also I think four legged bugs would be good to include
I like Deuteronomy 13 for violence and Matthew 10:35 for the ideas of a peaceful jesus.
You said you wanted ones that aren't confuseable or have a way to rationalize it away. That is impossible to deliver. You give them OT they say it doesn't count anymore, you give them NT you read it wrong.
Here are a few links that might help you out.
That list I was telling you about.
EvilBible.com and SAB could help you find some.
BibleBrowser.com will let you look up verses and see them in a bunch of translations and "root" langue
You guys...why start a different thread with one already going? Those so called contradictions have been explained and simply do not hold merit when actually investigated. Don't take someone else's word for it and then just run away saying "I knew it was wrong." What I cannot understand is why you guys will continue to base your arguments off 1. irritional lies and 2. questionable research.
Read the full amount of that thread you referenced. You will find that 99% of all those "contradictions" are simply mistranslations. The others....misunderstandings of the culture of the time. The bible contains no contradictions. Period.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I'm not so sure; quoting something I saw on he a while ago:
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
qbg,
Much in the same way RRS has used a specific verse from the bible and perverted it to be this challenge?
It's all been done before. How the so called Christians will use a verse to talk about snake handling, how a few more will use it to rationalize white supremasy, and of course what others use to prove evolution. What man's will and what God's will are never coincide. But that does not mean the bible itself has contradictions.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I'm asking a totaly decent questions, no lies and no fraud. Where did god create bacterias and did adam have to name them all?
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
What do you think he did during his time?
He supposedly had all the time in the wourld, what's wrong with naming a few trillion (Quadrillion/Quintillion?) animals/plants/microorganisms/rocks/etc?
First I gotta know...why do you care? Don't you have enough on your plate to concern yourself with?
Second if it were God's will for you to understand it and explain it, you'd know it by now.
Lastly, last time I did any kind of research on bacteria, they have always existed and it is their nature to modify themselves to their situation. They are what they are. That brings me back to my first question...why do you care? Adam naming them all is just dumb because you know as well as anyone else that man's ability in terms of science has increased over the ages so I don't think that Adam though Moses though even up to the time of when the microscope was invented that the word "bacteria" was even used - man didn't know what they were. How do I explain this? Because it was not God's will for us to know it. I'm sure that you will have a different explanation however the fact remains Adam was no Stephen Hawking.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Thanks Voiderest & all, good ideas.
Sure there is a nice list already, but it doesn't really seem to address many of my points, although it has things for me to consider!
Thanks also for the links, I knew them, but I need 'first hand' comments/analysis more than a list of occurrences, because I don't want to cite weak/apparent contradictions... This is something I miss in many online lists, they often appear as 'look! I found another one!' instead of informed statements.
Of course that of Rook is very well done, in this sense, and I'm looking forward to learn from your inputs!
Then of course, believers will keep rationalizing... lol
wk
so will you'll accept lies and inaccurate listings? Interesting....I never thought someone who doesn't believe would accept just anyone's post without proof....
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Hi Razor,
what are you talking about? We are here - I am here - exatly for that, to look for the truth. That's why I asked for RRS feedback, because they know what they say.
And that's why I have also read the page you linked in the contradictions list thread. Do you call that accurate truth? Are you satisfied with that? I'm not.
Of course you can explain away pretty much anything by interpreting verses and adding meaning or contextualizing possibilities - as I understood your suggested page does, by the way not relating to my here raised points - but when it is not mere rationalization it is then only an hypothesis amongst others.
And in my opinion, that, if you really care about truth, should be for you a good reason not to believe, as it is for me.
Will,
It's not just one site ya know. Look for yourself if you are not satisfied with the one I posted. You'll see all over the web how all the so called contradictions are not. Still not satisfied with that do you own research. Find out that in fact there are misinterpretations and misunderstandings with the culture of the time. I wonder...why is proof not enough for you?
You are right about one thing...I do care about the truth. Faith aside, if you have one set of information telling you one thing and a totally different set refuting it, that should tell you that you need to discover it for yourself. I am always suprised at some of you; take what you were told without discovering it for yourself.
The reason I believe is because of something I cannot explain to you. And what's more is even if I told you, you won't believe me but then, you aren't supposed to (Romans 9:14-18). So, I want to thank you for not believing as you only prove the bible that much more correct to me and to all Christians that understand you were not meant to hear (Matthew 11:27).
So tell me though, since you are offering your opinions, are you open minded enough to try to understand someone elses?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Hi Razor,
, then how can you blame us unbelievers? I'll tell you what: I'll get another sentence: 'Ask and it will be given to you' (mt 7:7). This proves again that the bible must be interpreted in a good sense in order to be good. And this shows you my willing to understand: please God, Son, Spirit, let me know!
First of all yes, I'm open minded enough, I think so. Note though, that to be open minded it is not to be willing to accept anything I'm told.
You may agree with that. My criteria is to accept anything - even marvellous, supernatural events - once I have enough proof of it. Not 100% proof, which we cannot have not even by science, but 'enough proof'.
This for example would include 'something I cannot explain to others'. But would exclude pure faith. As you said, in fact: 'faith aside'!
That's the exact point: faith is not a good method for knowledge, in fact you just said that someway you know god exists, not that you have faith in it. Right?
Then you probably have faith in his plan etcetera, but this is an entirely different matter.
So trust me, I would like to know too! As I think most atheist would, they who take 'what they were told without discovering it for themselves' are probably fewer than you think. (But of course there are, as well as a great lot of believers that believe because of education only, and I guess they merit your surprise too).
So I'm reading from one side and the other about the bible. I think you may agree with me that some explanations are pretty contorted, others are good interpretations just beside other interpretations, and sure must be seen in the culture of the time.
Well then: the message of the bible isn't clear, nor absolute. That's more then enough for me!
Lastly: if someone was not ment to know unless the Son wanted him to ('mt 11:27'
Agreed. I'm not going to accept that the sky is really pink because I was told that either...
That's a pretty big problem though don't you think? I am not a believer because I grew up Catholic or whatever domination under the sun...I believe because of personal experience directly related to what I know in my heart was God. I'm sure you've probably heard it hundreds of times..."I heard him speaking to me" and so on and so forth so I'm not going to make some huge example out of it so as to make it unbelievable; my experience simply has to deal with a relationship I believe in and how I am here doing God's will.
Nothing worth learning has ever been either clear or absolute until that moment arrives and you shout out "I get it!" You think I could sit here and tell you from the top of my head what the difference is between micro and macro evolution without looking it up (I had to by the way)? Same went for the bible..though I should add here that as I read the bible for the first time, well the best way I can describe this is do you remember how you were when in the classroom and you began to read about some new topic/subject (say the concept of dividing fractions in math) and somehow you just understood what was going on? Plenty of lost faces in the class but you knew it. It was like that with the bible for me. I just knew what was going on. I mean hell watch almost any movie and you see the same thing - you knew what was going on before the characters seem to and poof! You had it. Not all of the bible is that way of course so you still have to research...
Ah the "control" point. I don't blame "unbelievers" for anything. Frankly the only thing I get upset about is the false assumptions about "believers" without knowing the person directly. I believe atheists ask for that much as well so why be hypocrites about it? As I said, I know non-believers are supposed to be here so I am not here to convert anyone. I'm here to ask questions and tell you that many of your assumptions about theists are wrong.
Do we have the control to believe or not? I've been roasted on this by other Christians before so I imagine I might again however do we as humans actually have the ability to tell God "I believe in you now."? No. How can you ask God for something if you don't know him to begin with? You might tell me that the verse came before the other one in the book but I don't believe chronology has anything to do with the point being made. You cannot know God until you know Jesus and Jesus brings you to the understanding of God and his power. This is what Matthew 11 and in an even bigger way Romans 9 write. This sends it home:
Romans 9:20-21 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
To those who truly have come to believe they will understand that God did not give us the choice as to what our purpose on earth will be. It's up to him. That's why some might have a hard time accepting that someone as evil as Hitler might not be in hell. If it was God's purpose for Hitler to be on this earth and do what he did, who are we to question it or more so, who are we to judge Hitler?
Acts 9 describes how Saul became Paul the apostle (the name Paul started in Acts 13:9). I can't say I was thrown down from a horse but it felt pretty close to that. It's the best way I can describe how it is I came to believe...
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Hi Razorphreak,
, and I prefer to judge thesis for the good/truth they bring.
please understand that I meant 'to blame' in the simple sense of 'can you not excuse them if...' with not a hint of judgement on you. I agree it is upsetting being judged without being known, and I feel that's exactly what... you did just now! Well, we got that clear, so I won't take offence, and I hope you won't too.
I like your approach, by the way, not to aim to convert but to ask questions. It is mine too.
This misunderstanding on the meaning of words we use is a central problem of the bible. Misunderstanding happens, obviously, but we here can explain ourself. Science, as for your example, too. And none of us - because of this limits - do not claim to be divine and perfect, nor absolute in any sense. It would be rather silly, isn't it?
Now, shouldn't the same apply to the bible to? Why should it be taken as divine and absolute if misunderstanting happens AND it cannot explain itself?
See my point? Explaination comes from interpretation, and it can be interpreted differently. So to believe *our* meaning is the just one is very relative, do you agree?
It happened to me a lot of time to watch a movie and be lead do believe an end which then turned out to be very different, I'm sure it happened to you too.
So, I prefer to consider the bible as work of man - as it is - in a way that if a 'god' is behind it, we cannot really say.
But then again you can say that you simply 'got it'. Great for you! Maybe you're some way superior (no irony intended), or truly God gave you this privilege. Again then, can you blame... I mean can you not excuse me if I don't believe? You say it is up to god and only god to make me believe, but so why are you asking questions then?
I see your understanding of this issue is particular, in fact you know there are other christians who will tell this is false and to believe is really up to us. Who is right? Both sides have strong faith, so faith itself doesn't matter. Both *may* be right, who knows? Again: that's why I take distance from anything so absolutely relative (pun intended
Christianity, religions, do not bring truth, as I think I have demonstrated, but certainly they can be somewhat true. Also, they can bring good to us. Or not.
Ethics to me is very important. I measure it for the good *for us*, not whether it is 'word of God', which we can't be sure about. And I must say that often the bible fails, even miserably, on that issue too.
To me, the very example you made (Rm 9:20-21) is morally wrong: only someone who is submitted to the authority can accept not to dispute it ever. The right to ask/question/dispute authority is a central tenet on modern democracies!
Nobody's perfect. Unintentional if you took it that way..but I've got thick skin so you won't offend me easily.
The bible has been accepted by those who believe as being yes written by men but under the influence if you will. If you accept there to be a God, and God as a deity is perfect, then his word would be perfect as well. The problem comes if you take the bible, written so many years ago, and try to apply it to the culture of today, you'll come across several things that won't make sense. For example the concept of slavery. When Americans think of that we think of the Africans that were brought and forced to do labor against their will. Go backwards to the time of the Roman Empire and slavery was for debtors and criminals. Totally different situation and does NOT justify the use of what was done in colonial America. The problem with these misunderstandings is when you put the mindset of a man (or a woman) to use a piece to justify your actions. To say that the bible endorses racism is nonsense but listen to some circles and they did it. Same can be said for various religions to justify how they conduct their business (such as the Catholic Church and confirmation as being "required by the bible"
and you can see where the will of man replaced that of God. There is no justification for it but how will you change society? As it is look at how hard some Christian groups work against doing any good for someone who is gay but was beaten by an extremist.
If I judge or blame it's because I'm not perfect. I don't try to do it but it's what happens. No person on this planet can ever claim to be perfect; it just doesn't exist (Romans 3).
Now because I believe and you don't, that doesn't mean we can't coexist as some Christian groups proclaim. That's why you have those who go door to door and ask "Do you know how to save your soul?" Invite them in for a chat and see how fast they run the other way...because they don't understand what Jesus really meant.
What fails is when a person claims to be so good at bible interpretation that his or her own biases are expressed. The bible has the answers but when we choose not to follow them because that's not what society says to do...that's when we failed it so of course we say the bible is wrong. Taking for example homosexuality; the bible says it is wrong and the way to immorality (Romans 1). Now does that give justification for ANY Christian to judge? Not just no but Hell no. Hate the sin not the sinner should be the message but of course people pervert the word to justify their own actions. If I met someone who was gay that does not mean I should reject them as a human, a customer, or even as a friend. The bible is very clear on that (Matthew 22:39, Matthew 5;43-48).
Exactly Will. Someone who submits. Christianity much like Islam is about submitting over to God's will and not yours. Do not confuse however that man should be submitting to another man which is what democracy is about. Free will and its definitions...man has the ability to choose quite a lot but does he have the ability to control his access to the holy spirit? The word teaches the answer is no. Not many will accept that, not even Christians.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Sure it was unintentional, but it was
No probs anyway.
Well Razorphreak, you made your point very clear, and I did too I think.
you said: The bible has been accepted by those who believe as being yes written by men but under the influence if you will.
I said: Misunderstanding happens, obviously, but we here can explain ourself. Science, as for your example, too. And none of us - because of this limits - do not claim to be divine and perfect (...) Now, shouldn't the same apply to the bible to?
You said: If you accept there to be a God
But also: we as humans actually have the ability to tell God "I believe in you now."? No.
You said: The problem comes if you take the bible, written so many years ago, and try to apply it to the culture of today
I said: Well then: the message of the bible isn't clear, nor absolute. That's more then enough for me!
You said: Go backwards to the time of the Roman Empire and slavery was for debtors and criminals.
I say: Uh, didn't know that. Can you give me a reference I could check? Or may anyone at RRS confirm? By the way, what about hebrew culture? What about VT?
You said: Same can be said for various religions to justify how they conduct their business (...) and you can see where the will of man replaced that of God
I said: Explaination comes from interpretation, and it can be interpreted differently. (...) So, I prefer to consider the bible as work of man - as it is - in a way that if a 'god' is behind it, we cannot really say. But then again you can say that you simply 'got it'...
You said: There is no justification for it but how will you change society?
I say: Well, let's start to take human rights ideal, reciprocal respect and effective communication as the best tools for a better society, instead of 'MY God is right, yours is a silly creation of your deluded fantasy'. I don't mean to say that no god exists, that's beside the point in building a better society, I'm saying: which best tools there are? Do we agree here?
You said: Now because I believe and you don't, that doesn't mean we can't coexist
I say: agreed! Of course the issue is: how? That may not be such an easy answer.
You said: What fails is when a person claims to be so good at bible interpretation that his or her own biases are expressed.
I say: My point is: how do *you* know to be right? You seem to discard all other biblical interpretations (some of them highly researched, as for catholic protestant and hebrew theology) because they can't see right, but what is the difference with yours? Tell my how can you see right. Not by faith, remember, they have faith too! Until that, I'll discard theirs as well as yours, for the same reason.
You said: Hate the sin not the sinner (...) If I met someone who was gay that does not mean I should reject them as a human
I say: 1) To be gay is not a choice but a natural sexual orientation. Should not be a sin in the first place. 2) If 2 gays want to marry, would you assure them this respectful right based on what you cited, or will you just say like 'Look, I love you but I can't let you practice your sins. And remember a family is meant to be man-woman, that's in the bible'?
You said: Christianity much like Islam is about submitting over to God's will and not yours. Do not confuse however that man should be submitting to another man
I said: To me, the very example you made (...) is morally wrong
Plus: I think the right to ask/question/dispute authority applies to any hierarchy. I don't see way a God shouldn't be judged but followed blindly. That is not ethical. Also, I don't see way a God shouldn't *want* to be judged, if he thinks he is right. You say it not a matter of man-to-man, but I see god behaves as a human tyrant would do in this case. He is also referred to as 'lord' and 'father': so why the relationship with such a being should be any different? Please don't say 'because He is God', I would just replay: 'Sure, and you blindly submitted'.
Well, if mature people would choose it freely, and would also be fully happy with that, be it. Anything else won't make. This I think.
WK
Any one from RRS like to share more of his knowledge on my starting points above?
Oh well... go ahead, please!
Will,
I gotta admit I liked that post....
As far as believing in the motivation behind the bible, believing it to be written by man for man or by man from the influence of God, well no science will ever prove this one way or the other. We know this. Simply shouting out "it's the word of God" is not good enough. Agree to be of different mindsets on this one because it is a matter of faith that you believe its word to be of God or not. This still however does NOT make it contradictory within itself.
On that note, to dismiss it as a work of the divine is one thing but to dismiss it as a work of literature is another. It still shows the culture and customs of an older generation and how they followed their faith and beliefs. Because its wittings are not clear to you does not mean they won't be clear to all. Hence as a work of literature it should not be simply dismissed because you haven't quite understood its full meaning, believing in it or not. I didn't understand Beowulf the first time I read it but I didn't dismiss it as a work of literature...
Regarding the coexistence of atheist and theist, well it won't start with "My God is right" that's for sure. Now this is my opinion on the matter however I think the process for making friends is there already. Respect, tolerance, and ability to understand a difference in belief are what is needed for it to happen. Walking around saying "I feel sorry for you" is not showing any kind of understanding or respect for that person because they happen to believe something you don't. It's just as bad if I were to say "You MUST believe to save your soul" to someone who isn't going to believe or wasn't meant to believe (based on scripture).
On the point of a "sinful" lifestyle...well I didn't want this to be about if "gay" is biological or simply a choice, so we'll just leave it at that (new thread?). Now regarding the acceptance of a lifestyle that I do not share...and the issue of the acceptance of that lifestyle. What a homosexual couple does, right or wrong, between themselves will be between each and God in the end (my belief). I'm not here to judge them either way nor am I here to say you guys are going to hell for not believing. I don't agree with you but that doesn't mean we can't be respectful or for that matter, go have lunch as friends...
Now on your last point of God and submitting to...if you come to accept there is a God, is God a man? Has the idea of "God" ever been that of a man that began as a man and ended as one as well (excluding those like David Koresh or Jim Jones)? My point is if you believe there to be a God then God is above human issues of judgement or justice. I don't think you can put a relationship with any diety on the same level as you do between individuals on Earth. If you did, then we aren't talking about a relationship with a God to begin with. That's why I don't understand the morality issue you might have because just as I won't kneel to another man as a God, God is not a human to begin with. Know what I mean? Now did I blindly submit? No. The reason? I didn't choose to submit and any believer that understands that kind of transformation in his or her mind will say the same. I didn't choose to believe in God; I believe because God came to me in such a way that I cannot describe (as I stated before) and after research it for myself, I know it could not have been something easily dismissed. It's definately a "had to be there" situation that I do not expect you or any other person to believe, not even my own family. What I believe is if I did tell the story of how I came to believe in God and why I continue, God will reveal it to be the truth to others. The closest way to equate it...think of it in terms of people who believe in ghosts. You can accept them at their word or not. Does that make them any less of a person next to you however....well it shouldn't nor should it prevent any single person from developing a person-to-person relationship with that individual.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
"in the beginning there was nothing, and god said..."
nothing=god. case closed.
LV
For will know about greek/roman slavery:
Yes ideed, at that time slavery was a "sentence" used is some cases instead of death for three categories of persons: debtors, criminals and prisonners of war. Since the Empire was built on war it is likely that most slaves were POW. Slaves could also be freed by their master, which was very common, when they did a good job and served well. It was frowned upon not to free your slaves in your Will (after your death) when they have behaved well during certain periods.
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Even more significant than a major life form, they are the dominant life form. Without bacteria humans could not exist. I'm not exactly sure at what scale they start to be a requirement for larger life forms, but anything with a digestive system requires bacteria to work.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Appreciated.
> it is a matter of faith that you believe its word to be of God or not. This still however does NOT make it contradictory within itself.
Of course.
> as a work of literature it should not be simply dismissed because you haven't quite understood its full meaning, believing in it or not.
But the burden of proof is on your side. Untill you (believers) can demonstrate that it is inspired by a god - and that I don't understand the full meaning, apart from faith (see above) - it is logical to me to meanwhile stay to what is undeniably true: it was men who wrote it.
> Regarding the coexistence of atheist and theist, well it won't start with "My God is right" that's for sure. Now this is my opinion (...) Respect, tolerance, and ability to understand a difference in belief are what is needed for it to happen.
I so much agree with you! Great.
> well I didn't want this to be about if "gay" is biological or simply a choice (...) Now regarding the acceptance of a lifestyle that I do not share (...) I don't agree with you but that doesn't mean we can't be respectful
That's great again of you. I noted the biological factor only because you cited the bible, but based on what you say I agree to leave it there
See, in my country at the moment this is a hot political issue, we are issuing a new law about rights of gay families and I can say there is a great deal of resistance from catholic Church and catholic politicians (they believe it will 'destroy the traditional family', but never explain why. The thing is, it will hit god's/their authority).
So I guess this shows well how christian biblical understanding is variegated. Again, this doesn't reads in favor of 'divine absolutes', but rather to relative human views.
> if you believe there to be a God then God is above human issues of judgement or justice. I don't think you can put a relationship with any diety on the same level as you do between individuals on Earth. (...) God is not a human to begin with.
I don't think so. First, if God is supposed to enter our world and judge our lifes, there must be some level of correspondence. Otherwise, when I'm going to judge is method (because I will) I will find it not moral by my standards, say the ethical standars we got as modern humans. I wouldn't submit to anything too different!
Second: I think many many christians (unlike you) do relate to their god as they would do to authority, in fact they do to Church authority.
Besides, the trinity god is also human!
> Now did I blindly submit? No. The reason? I didn't choose to submit (...) I didn't choose to believe in God; I believe because God came to me in such a way that (...) it could not have been something easily dismissed.
I see what you mean. It is a shame god chooses not to do the same with me!
By the way, generally speaking, blind submission in the worse sense is the way many believers believe. I think we can agree that it is not a great way to live a relationship, even with a god.
> think of it in terms of people who believe in ghosts. You can accept them at their word or not. Does that make them any less of a person next to you however....well it shouldn't nor should it prevent any single person from developing a person-to-person relationship with that individual.
Of course not! Relationships shouldn't depend on this. Regarding the existance of ghosts and gods, however, we would be still in high waters.
Ciao!
WK
Thanks Laguna.
Do you know about hebrew culture too?
Vastet, your signature is of genius!!!
But why do I have to prove it at all? If you told me that you believe in love at first sight but I've never experienced it, how would I know that it exists?
I cannot deny that men wrote the book. But again it goes back to WHY they wrote it...not if. But that still doesn't resolve the issue of supposed contradictions.
There is correspondence. Most of the time though, we won't listen. There is a joke about that I heard once: This lady living in the midwest was going though the last flood that hit and water was coming up to her house. She prayed for God to save her. A police car drove up and the cop told her to come along and he'd take her to safety but she responds, "No, I'm waiting for God to save me." Later as the water rose, she had to climb to the roof and then a boat approached. Again she refused the help as she was waiting for God. Now the water was really moving and the house was about to collapse when a chopper came near but again she refused the help waiting for God. She died in the flooding and as she got to heaven, she came to God and asked, "God, why didn't you save me?" God said, "I sent a car, boat, and a chopper..what else did you want me to do?"
Church authority I think got put on the wrong level a long time ago. When it comes to salvation, the bible is very specific in where the trust should be. I didn't say that God isn't an authority figure, but not in the sense of me following orders from a police officer...
It is always important to understand what it is you follow and more so to understand both sides of any issue. Can't tell the "blind" they are evil though, just have to show them where they are a bit mistaken...
Romans 2:13-15 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Indeed, when Gentiles (a.k.a atheists), who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.
Each person has a purpose on this earth and each person I think understands good from evil. This passage above is why I don't need to convert anyone (God will call those he wants anyway)...but it doesn't keep me from believing or from talking about the word from God.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
No i have no idea, i'm more a greek/roman expert.... But there is the infamous passage in the bible known as the "curse of Ham". Ham was one of the sons of Noah and was cursed for seeing (and mocking i think) his father naked. Ham was black and the ancestor of africans. For a very long period, hebrews have interpreted this passage to justify slavery based on race (very different from pagan slavery). Some info on that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Thanks. It's been a great source of controversy since I came up with it. Though sadly the only person to challenge it here was an atheist, and did so more out of reactive anger than real logical argumentation. I've had an amazing number of theists say that the two words "enlightened atheist" are self contradictory. Until I told them to look up the word enlightened anyway.
The gaming god bit is something I came up with to counter theism awhile back, though to be honest it's rooted in egotism at my skill in gaming.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Your right He didn't mention bacteria. Its one book He didn't mention every detail in the entire universe. He mentioned the things that were important to understand how great He is and how you can be saved.
Honestly my question is this, I don't want to be disrespectfull in any way, But if God is not real why are you against Christianity. What hope is their in this life. You are just a blip in time. Let the Christians be stupid but happy. If a Christian has faith in God, then this person has hope that God is in control and God will take care of him.
Just coming from a stupid Christian.
Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007
We've answered this here approximately 8,756,923,768,264,845 times already. We want to be happy in this, the only life we have. We oppose religion for the same reason you'd be opposed to the belief that 2 + 2 = 7. And because Christians try to impose their beliefs on us all the time: "In God We Trust" on money, "Under God" in the pledge, Anti-choice movement, discrimination against gays and women, the Christian war on science, etc.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Mattshizzle says "And because Christians try to impose their beliefs on us all the time: "In God We Trust" on money, "Under God" in the pledge, Anti-choice movement, discrimination against gays and women, the Christian war on science, etc."
By impossing beliefs I don't know what you have experienced. Jesus never forced anyone to be a Christian. I tell people about Christ, but if they don't wanna here it I keep walking. Sorry for caring for you and honestly love people enough I want them to go to heaven. You can say what you want about me but if you know then you know I'm not wanting to win a debate or make people think I'm the one who is right. I really want people to be saved. Because I care. What do you care if the money says under God and in the pledge? (Don't worry saying that doesn't make you a Christian) Are you angry that money is green. Why do they force us to like the color green. Why must it be rectagnle? Now if I were another religion yes it would bother me. But if I thought they were all stupid then I wouldn't care what the money said as long as people took it.
Do not judge Christianity by Christians, judge it by Christ. Science is ever evolving and finds its errors all of the time. We are not at war with science, every one should question it. If they didn't the world would still be thought to be flat. Discrimination against gays, I am well aware there are Christians who are idiots who say and do things that are evil agianst gays, there are also some atheist that do the same thing. Even worse is when some people use Christianity to discriminate. Being gay is a sin. Not said by me but said by God. But so is being drunk and so is telling a lie. When I look at a gay person I see an evil sinner. When I look at the most humble and Godly man I still see an evil sinner. None are righteouss no not one. This does not give the gay people a reason to be gay it is still an awful sin. But God loves these people as do I. And I would love to see them in my church any day of the week. I know that some Christians missed this pointed and didn't want these sinners in their church. But if you're in a church that doesn't have sinners then you are in a church that doesn't have people.
Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007
Most of us here don't actually believe Jesus ever existed. And as to the money/pledge, how would you feel if it said "One Nation under Allah" or "In the Flying Spaghetti Monster We Trust" or "One Nation - There is no God.?"
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Laguna - thanks!
Vastet - Controversy? Contradiction? Silly boys!
I find it a meaning, clever wordplay...
Hi Razor:
> But why do I have to prove it at all?
Of course you don't have. That was to say atheism is the right position until proven otherwise. It doesn't apply to you, since you've meet God inside.
> If you told me that you believe in love at first sight but I've never experienced it, how would I know that it exists?
You really don't want to follow that argument, do you? I hope so
> I cannot deny that men wrote the book.
Yep, this is the only sure thing in all.
> But again it goes back to WHY they wrote it...not if.
Sure, it is an interesting question. But I think we have come to agree that we can't decide. With or without 'personal experience of God' anyone can tell his 'because', or invent it, or just believing it. And the 'because' can really be anything at all, from any god to ET from any planet.
> But that still doesn't resolve the issue of supposed contradictions.
That are there. Unless feeling the answer inside...
> There is correspondence.
Uh? So now you say god and men ethics is similar. Great, I agree. That is why I can say 'Look at all the cruelty god shows in the VT!' and 'Look at the way he pretends to save us, by killing his son!' etc.
> Most of the time though, we won't listen. There is a joke about (...)
Nice joke (I knew it with a sea captain on his sinking boat, instead). The thing is: how can you say all other people won't listen? Not only atheists, who by the way are often pretty open and willing to understand, but to all the sincere religious people out there, particuarly a couple of billions christians? See, this kind of statements are 'not falsifiable', I take you know what it means, and seems only a defensive way to say 'I'm right, you're wrong, but you can't see it'. Another weakness it has is that *anyone* can say this to justify his/her view!
It doesn't mean that who uses it is not right, but he/she needs more to support his thesis.
> Church authority I think got put on the wrong level a long time ago.
We completely agree here.
> I didn't say that God isn't an authority figure, but not in the sense of me following orders from a police officer...
Sure not, but also not as a great and sage and respectful Teacher/Father, from who I don't expect behaviours like in the bible. (Here, if you'd like to come back with the 'God is above human issues of judgement or justice' argument please see my answer above and before.
> It is always important to understand what it is you follow and more so to understand both sides of any issue.
Great! And, as for me, if then I can't decide myself, I won't embrace any of them. Of course you've your proof inside, so for you it is different.
> Can't tell the "blind" they are evil though, just have to show them where they are a bit mistaken...
Some times I, maybe we, can tell. Other times, to discuss or show them may well be enough.
>> It is a shame god chooses not to do the same with me!
> Romans 2:13-15 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
These are different things.
Anyway, elsewhere (and a lot!) in the same bible it is said that faith in God/Jesus is absolutely necessary for salvation.
Also, the Law for me is flawled, so I won't follow it either. I prefer to keep human best values and put people/world always ahead of any god. This seems much more useful and moral to me.
> Each person (...) I think understands good from evil.
I think each person *may* understand good from evil. If he/she grows up being esteemed and respected. I think if this is missing, we grow dependent (from a thing or the other) and therefore 'blind'.
> This passage above is why I don't need to convert anyone
And I thank you for that!
In fact I really feel it that way, so I want to tell you that I really like your approach. We seem to be in tune on life values too, that's nice!
I said it would offend me becuase I believe in God and I believe that it would offend my God. But if I didn't believe in God then I wouldn't care. To you it should make no difference what it says on the piece of paper.
And to say there was no man named Jesus, I don't understand. To say he wasn't God, though I would say you are wrong, I could at least understand.
Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007
There's a whole forum here called "Jesus Mythicism."
You know this in a small sense I actually agree with. To have 100% separation church and state any reference to God can be removed....but I've got a question; why would it offend you? And that question goes for both sides...why would having it on money offend you and why would NOT having it on money offend you? The fact that it was put there shows the heritage of this nation and where we came from. The fact that having it there in todays society with such easily offended people who seem to not be able to live their lives without saying they are offended on some level to me is amazing but to be technical about it, it should be removed. This should not affect any true believer's faith because if it does, then one should ask why.
will...be atheist or theist we should not be saying one is right or not. So to say that one is the right position until otherwise noted is arrogant and has no place in a society that desires equality and understanding.
For me, belief in Jesus is the way to salvation. And what's more is I do believe that is the way for those that are chosen, referred to in the bible as the "elect". As I've said before though it is not for us, that is any person alive or dead, to say they know who is saved and who is not. Each will be judged in the end of time soooo we go on. And because I believe that every person on this planet is here for either noble or common purpose (good or evil), each will be judged accordinly.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Exactly. Why do theists always whine "leave us alone" when they are propogating their beliefs in the process? How about you leave US alone?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Your right He didn't mention bacteria. Its one book He didn't mention every detail in the entire universe. He mentioned the things that were important to understand how great He is and how you can be saved.
Are you an idiot? Without lithotrophic bacteria, organotrophic endosymbiotic bacteria and phototrophic chloroplasts, there could be absolutely no life on this Earth. BActeria are by far the most impressive organisms on this planet. Out of 55 million species, 99% are prokaryotic and 99% have yet to be classified. Bacteria are the giver of life, they sustain every eukaryotic function imaginable. Surely God would not overlook mentioning this extremely impressive creation?
Honestly my question is this, I don't want to be disrespectfull in any way, But if God is not real why are you against Christianity. What hope is their in this life. You are just a blip in time. Let the Christians be stupid but happy. If a Christian has faith in God, then this person has hope that God is in control and God will take care of him.
Just coming from a stupid Christian.
Straw man. Look what happens when religion has free reign? It appears that the West went through two mellenia of sexual and intellectual and ethical neurosis because the writers of the Gospel could not read hebrew. On 9/11 we saw what unchecked faith could do before our horrified eyes. During the 16th century, the Spanish, who were better at causing human suffering than anyone else on this planet, were dragging people from their beds and locking them in devices that chained their arms double bent behind their back so they dislocated their shoulders for the crimes of "pagan rituals" and "conjuring thunderstorms". If we were still led by the faithful, we would still think the world was flat. As for "what hope is there without god", I actually find comfort in the idea that we are here by natural processes. We create our own purpose and lead our own life.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
We might as well just drop this whole bible contradiction thing now. The Rature Right said the contradictions were tests from god, how can we argue with that?
LOL! Yeah, they said that.
Atheist Books
You are left alone. At no point do you ever have to acknowledge any person with beliefs that are not your own. Any Christian who does not understand the words of Jesus is not your fault. If you are not at peace with yourself how can you be with anyone else?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
No I'm not an idiot. thousands of years ago it was not of the upmost importance for the people to know that without lithotrophic bacteria, organotrophic endosymbiotic bacteria and phototrophic chloroplasts, there could be absolutely no life on this Earth. But thank you for trying to impress us all with your knowlege of bacteria.
For the rest of what you said, If you want to bring up all of the wars of the past yes you can blame religion. Because everyone had one. It was tough to find an Atheist. But if Christians act like Christians these things would not go on. No Christianity didnt cause these crimes, criminals did. And if there is no God then there are no morals. Is it wrong for the lion to kill. What is the differnce between me and the lion if there is no God. War would just be survival of the fittest without God.
Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007
I take it you aren't in america.
thousands of years ago it was not of the upmost importance for the people to know that without lithotrophic bacteria, organotrophic endosymbiotic bacteria and phototrophic chloroplasts, there could be absolutely no life on this Earth. But thank you for trying to impress us all with your knowlege of bacteria.
It isnt that it was of utmost importance for them to know, of course it was! If they had known, think of how much faster medical knowledge would have advanced. All knowledge is of utmost importance. Religion is not knowledge in any way that would not be an insult to the word "knowledge". The simple fact is that they didnt know. Just admit it. The Bible was written by ignorant people 2000 years ago.
For the rest of what you said, If you want to bring up all of the wars of the past yes you can blame religion. Because everyone had one. It was tough to find an Atheist. But if Christians act like Christians these things would not go on. No Christianity didnt cause these crimes, criminals did. And if there is no God then there are no morals.
Standard argument: "It isn't religion's fault for these atrocities, it is man's baser nature". But you don't need to be a neurophyscologist to know that people who celebrate the violent death of their children and fly planes into buildings believe some rather questionable things about the world. As Bertrand Russell put it: Good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion. I never claimed that religion was responsible for all the bad in the world, and I never said that removing it would remove bad things, but it would definitely help.
And if there is no God then there are no morals. Is it wrong for the lion to kill. What is the differnce between me and the lion if there is no God. War would just be survival of the fittest without God.
You evidently do not understand neuroelectrochemistry, evolutionary game theory or cognitive neuroscience. I am writing an essay which I will post soon which I hope will debunk this ridiculous claim.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
A quick look at the jesus mythicist topic would show how there is absolutely no evidence anyone existed by the name of jesus christ.
Beyond that, maybe you do shut up whenever someone doesn't want to hear about your god. But you are not every theist on the planet, and many of them will not shut up. Just as many of them try to force their beliefs on those who don't believe. Until they shut up as well, I will be fighting them.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I am not left alone. I have idiots ringing my door bell when I'm sleeping, so I can go to work that day, to spout off about some idiot named jehova. I am forced to use a calendar based on the supposed birthday of a fictional character. I have to listen to idiots trying to suggest that everything wrong in life is my fault. I have to drive by signs suggesting that I will burn in some fictional hell. I have people surrounding me trying to make me believe in the tooth fairy, "for my own good". You people need to shut the fuck up and quit dodging the facts. Until you do, I'll be slapping every one of you who steps up in the face with reality. Including yourself, since you're here bitching and whining as hypocritically as they all do.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
So you'd give your energy to a bunch of idiots? Have I done that to you? Am I here trying to convert you? The idea of this thread was talking about contradictions in the bible and my stance was they are based on the wrong approach and these contradictions simply are untrue. I'm not going to try to convert you or preach to you but I will tell you where you are wrong in your assumptions toward Christianity (by the way, Jehovah Witness is NOT Christian).
Now with that said, why do you lower yourself to that point? If there was any one passage from the bible that I'd tell you about to use against these pushy so called Christians, well actually there are many but think of this one:
Romans 3 28-31 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
My point is don't belittle yourself because a bunch of idiots are in your face. For you...
Romans 12: 17-21 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
When you follow that path, what can they say against you? That you are condemned because you were nice? Do you know that would litterly be forcing them to be walking contradictions?
The only thing I ask of you is not to judge so quickly. Not all Christians take the bible out of context either...
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Knowing about this bacteria might have helped them medically. To bad the Bible wasn't a medical book. It wasn't the point of the Book. It would be like a history book that didn't talk about math. It wasn't what God was wanting to reveal.
You are also right in saying Standard argument: "It isn't religion's fault for these atrocities, it is man's baser nature".
It's the standard argument because it's the truth. And once again if there is no God there is no one who can judge what is right and what is wrong. I am just an evolved animal. Nature made me this way. Who can judge me. If there is no God. But if there is a God then He is the judge and those that hated Him will be sent to Hell. And God is the basis of all knowledge. Wisdom comes from fear of the Lord.
Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007
You are also right in saying Standard argument: "It isn't religion's fault for these atrocities, it is man's baser nature".
It's the standard argument because it's the truth. And once again if there is no God there is no one who can judge what is right and what is wrong. I am just an evolved animal. Nature made me this way. Who can judge me. If there is no God. But if there is a God then He is the judge and those that hated Him will be sent to Hell. And God is the basis of all knowledge. Wisdom comes from fear of the Lord.
You completely ignored the rest of my post, you took what I said out of context, and you twisted it too.
But you don't need to be a neurophyscologist to know that people who celebrate the violent death of their children and fly planes into buildings believe some rather questionable things about the world. As Bertrand Russell put it: Good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion. I never claimed that religion was responsible for all the bad in the world, and I never said that removing it would remove bad things, but it would definitely help.
You evidently do not understand neuroelectrochemistry, evolutionary game theory or cognitive neuroscience. I am writing an essay which I will post soon which I hope will debunk this ridiculous claim.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism