The Bible's Greatest Contradiction

What i believe, as in....? If about life etc, then yes actually. I believe in evolution, which has never been disputed, ever, and has so much evidence supporting it i doubt i will ever be disproven (although it still can be).

For aiki's claims, they cannot be disproven (a problem in itself*), but i've certainly shown why someone shouldn't claim them to be true.

*To claim something is true, there needs to be the possibility that it is untrue. If you can never prove it to be untrue, you cannot say it is true.

 

Can you summarise it?

Yes, it is subjective, which is why i never said it was true. It's what I, as well as many others (including Christians), see the Bible to be. Why do i believe that? Well, because that way you are not left with comeplete bs to answer to and it makes more sense for people to interpret the Bible according to them. If you say it is literal and accurate you then have a lot of explaning to do, such as why people have a different take on it, and especially the inconsistencies in it. If it is the world of God, and he in infallible why would there be contraditions and inconsistencies?


Also, how did it [the bible] happen then.
And what is the evidence for what we are discussing - cite any source you like.

 

I'll post quite a few tomorrow for you to refute, but for now...

GE 1:24-27 - Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 - Man was created before animals were created.

Explain that one.

 

Nice personal attack

 

"on MAP"

... do you expect every person on here, to read every post, by every member on every thread and discussion ?

 

If I set out to teach geometry, I would start with a few assumptions and a handful of postulates. All the rest follows from the initial assumptions. That is the way you can derive Euclidian geometry, or trigonometry, or Calculus, or advanced integral equations. The result is a system that is internally consistent, logical, and valid for developing further insights, within the constraints of the initial assumptions and postulates.

This is very similar to the way I build on my faith. When you ask for proof of a certain part of my belief system, I can't, in a few Internet posts, go back to 'Square One' and retrace all the steps I've taken. What I will likely do is show how that certain part you are questioning is internally consistent with other things that I believe and are supported by other things that (in my mind) have already been grappled with and to some extent 'proved'. The result is a belief system that is internally consistent, logical, and valid for developing further insights, within the constraints of the initial assumptions and postulates.

This is actually (if you think about it) how most philosophies are built and developed. It also shows a good tool (logic and the search for internal consistency/inconsistency) for determining which philosophies/beliefs should be eliminated from consideration as foundational to an all-encompassing world-view.

Apply to the current discussion: If you question a single aspect of my belief system, please allow me to defend it within the constraints of my belief system (i.e., I will be showing how that single issue fits into the 'Big Picture'). OTOH, please use the same tools to evaluate non-Christian/non-theistic beliefs, because I see that as a major failure of many of the competing philosophies/ideologies, and thus a major reason why I believe in Christianity.

HJS: as far as evidence that the Bible was written by God, what are your views on prophecy?

 

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that God exists. Suppose also that your eternal destiny and the destinies of billions who will follow you depend on your relationship with Him.
- By definition, there can be only one 'Most High', therefore, any religion that doesn't acknowledge this God, or posits other gods in His place, is incorrect and inconsistent with the initial assumptions.

Intolerant? Yup.
Inconsistent? Illogical? Incorrect for God to Act that way? No.

 

I get that Capt Ann what I don't get is how you could possibly defend and take as the word of God a passage urging people to "make no treaties with those who inhabit the land" and to "destroy all their idols and altars." As I said its teachings like these that resulted in some of the greatest acts of genocide and cultural vandalism that have ever taken place. Your answer simply states that the Christian God according to Christian teaching is supposedly the only true 'most high' God but so what? Is that supposed to explain to me why its fine for God to urge people to destroy other peoples religions and to ignore non-Christian people? Because lets make it clear he's not just saying 'I'm the most high God' here he is clearly saying 'Im the Most high God' so go out and ignore non-Christian people and destroy the relics of their religions.

 

This is a poor argument unless your prepared to do the same yourself and your clearly not. You want religious people to immediately see the value of your position, accept your assumptions like personal subjective experience is irrelevant and yet your never prepared to extend the same courtesy back to them! If you want to hear non-religious reasons for believing in God then ask an atheist because clearly thats the only kind of answers you will accept. Whats the point in asking religious people if your not going to allow them to answer, it's basically like saying you want someone to echo your opinion or else they aren't allowed to speak!

What do you mean by this evolution has been disputed? Practically everyday since it was first discovered, the challenges have all been proved false and its true evolution is about as likely to be disproved as gravity but I don't see how you can say its never been disputed.

I hate the atheist persecution complex, I don't believe in a Christian type God but yet I rarely have found myself forced on MAP by religious people to defend my position (in fact its actually only 1 or 2 people in the 2 years I've been here who have even inquired into my belief). On the otherhand it seems that Christians are forced to defend their belief every other day on MAP and while most of them seem to be good enough sports to go along with it I imagine for an atheist on here to consistently complain of being hounded for their views must be a little annoying. And Strafio is right punisher you really don't come across as someone who has "huge respect for ppl that believe in God" in fact in nearly every post you come across as the exact opposite!

And Homer and Aiki you guys are going round in circles why don't you just agree to start with a fresh slate rather than trying to critique the past 1,000 posts you have each made.

I have problems with Christianity like the majority of people who don't believe in God but I have to say that I have an almost equal problem with the anti-religious fundamentalist approach.

P.S. Deaf ears is not a personal attack Homer its suggesting your not listening which is exactly the same thing you frequently accuse aikiMac of doing.

 

Care to direct this comment towards aikimac ? Because to be honest, thats more his attitude than mine. Anyone on this thread that is atheist or agonist has numerous times extended the courtesy to listen to a Christians reasons, in fact that is what homers has been doing for the past 1,000 posts. Same can't be said concerning aikimac, who even tried to make it seem as if you need to believe that god exists first before you can start assuming anything else. So basically, since no atheist believes that the conversation becomes irrelevant to start with. And you are right about the highlighted bit. If I just wanted to hear an atheists oppinion I will just ask one of them. Because I'll get the same answer back I want to hear anyways. So what does aiki expect ? That homer suddenly turns into a bible reading Christian before he is going to answer his questions properly ?

That CKava I completley agree with.

Bye the way, CKava you don't know me personally so even if that seems to be your impression you are wrong. I base my dislike of people on their personality, not what religion, race or sex they are.

Christian

 

I'm not commenting on how you are personally or how you judge people in your everyday life as you say I have no experience in these areas and I'm sure your a perfectly nice fella. I'm just commenting on how you present yourself in the posts concerning religion in this forum please don't take it personally.

I agree if you take the sort of stance you discussed then it is a pointless discussion. That was the point I was making. I don't believe in God and yet I can study religion at uni. I do this by studying and listening to people's beliefs even though I don't necessarily agree with them or the justifications people provide for believing them. If you want to prove religious people wrong then its not a discussion on religious beliefs anymore its an attack on them and an attempt to expose flaws in the arguments people use to support their belief. Which I actually believe can be a legitimit thing to do but only if you don't attempt to disguise it as 'wanting to learn more about what religious people think'.

If you want to talk about Christianity then you should study it just in the same way if you want to talk about evolution you should study it first. You don't have to agree with Christianity to read a book discussing biblical scholarship nor for that matter do you have to spend years researching the topic but just studying a bit is necessary otherwise your just coming from a completely uninformed viewpoint. Remember how much people understand of evolution when they do no study and just rely on popular information? You get people believing animals are arranged in a hierarchy of evolution and people thinking that a monkey had to give birth to a human at some point and so on.

 

And that's a good reason for questioning his beliefs in the first place.
It's not a good reason to assume that there's a fallacy before you've even properly questioned. Later on you say that you did show the fallacy in the premise. Maybe we both missed that. Perhaps we should do what Ckava said and start from scratch.

Remember, we're talking about justified belief rather than truth. Significant difference. If he can still think a subjective belief is objective truth. Perhaps you mean objectively justified, that would mean that you and I should believe it too. Then the burden of proof would be on him to show us that we should believe too.

So, he can have a subjective belief that he reckons is objectively justifiable.
He has no right to expect us to believe anything until he can objectively justify/prove it, but he can still believe that it can be done and that he just can't do it yet. So while he doesn't seem to be telling us what we can and can't believe, I don't see any problems with what he's saying.

If am to understand any new concept in maths then I have to accept it on faith at first until I understand it. Only then can it be proved/disproved. At one point I went through a phase of deciding to accept concepts only through proof. It was impossible. Aikimac's saying that you have to accept these premises and imagine true to understand it, and only once you understand it can you know what it is for it to be true or false. That's the only reason why he asks you to hypothetically accept certain premises. Until then, it'll be impossible for you to understand where his justifications come from.

I'd say that Zen/Buddhism can't be proved. You can try it with some faith and you might recognise it in your experience, but it can't be proved/disproved/justified through intellectual debate. Certain metaphysics of it maybe, but even then that usually relies on a strawman of some kind of concept.

Either way, you can carry on questioning Aikimac's beliefs, but to question them you have to trully understand them, and to do that you'll need to humour him in methods of trying to explain them to you. You agree with that, right?

You kidding! It takes me time to come up with these replies!

Yes. It's disrespectful both ways. They shouldn't do it, I shouldn't do it, you shouldn't do it. Maybe you don't mean to do it but you do. I notice, Ckava notices, Aikimac notices. Perhaps you're just mincing your words, perhaps you're just being over defensive because you feel that by these people believing that they think you should too. But you're the one who makes the attack.

No one's asking you to believe anything.
This is my point right here. We have specifically made it clear that this topic is about Aikimac's beliefs. So we're not talking about your beliefs or what you should believe, or Homer's. We're specifically talking about Aikimac's. So when Aikimac says that you should understand his beliefs before you criticise, is that unreasonable? He's not saying that you should agree with him, just that you should understand what you're calling illogical or irrational.

Like we say, we don't know anything about you, whether you respect or disrespect anything. But your posts on here have always shown a disrespect for theistic/Christian beliefs, so people find you disrespectful. Whether you are disrespecful or whether we've just misunderstood you, only God knows! . It's not that important. Just so you know why people think so.

 

Hmmmm. Let's take a look at some of those religions, in the context that this command was given and carried out:
Molech: This was a large Caananite idol made of metal, shaped like a horned beast with two arms held out in front, palms up. A large fired was kindled in the bottom furnace between Molech's feet. The fire was then stoked until the upper body and outstretched arms of the idol glowed red-hot. The offerings (in this case, dozens of live human infant babies) were placed, naked, screaming, on the glowing red arms, then rolled down to a metal plate in the idol's outstretched hands, where they were cooked alive. Worshippers screamed and cheered while musicians played drums and cymbals, to aid in worship and to drown out the screams of the cooking infants. Are you suggesting that it's shame that this cultural practice was lost because the Hebrews kept God's command?

Other Canaanite deities also required infant sacrifice in fire, but usually not so elaborately - no large idol was needed, just a nice fire would do.

There are others equally grotesque, but these are some of the best documented.

From the above, it should be clear why He would want the idols and altars destroyed. Nowhere in the Bible does God command to ignore non-Christian people. In fact, we are commanded to go into all the world and preach; make disciples of people of every nation, tribe, peoplegroup, and race; and act as 'our brother's keeper' in providing those things he needs (such as food, clothing, shelter, etc., as you see Christians doing in every nation, in response to any/every war or natural disaster). Nowhere are Christians commanded to kill or subjugate non-Christians, force them to believe, or promote our beliefs over theirs in any other way than presenting our case (preaching), pursuasion, reasoning, and demonstrating faith-in-action through our lives, love, and genuine care for them. This is actually a major differnce between Christian teaching on conversion and Islamic/Koranic teaching on conversion.

CKava, not meaning to be offensive, but just an observation: it appears that you have no problem with religion in general, as long as it includes a god-on-a-leash. You don't mind private beliefs in some deity, as long as that deity makes no requirements that might actually affect behavior, or imply that someone else's belief or behavior is 'wrong'. My God, however, is not a tame God. He can't be stuck in your pocket, to be pulled out when needed and tucked away when His requirements become inconvenient. The existence of 'truth' implies that anything contrary is 'false'. In this respect, all 'truth' (whether it be religious, scientific, historical, or mathematical) is by nature 'intolerant' of falsehood.

That actually brings up something I see as a fairly unique feature of Christianity: the belief in Jesus Christ and His word as absolute, eternal (i.e. unchanging) truth, with the insistance that others be given free will to accept or reject it.

Aside: for a really interesting application of the 'make no treaties' requirement, see Joshua Chapter 9, and think about why a Sovereign God would allow this to happen, and why it would be recorded in the Bible.

 

Capt Ann first of all I have a sneaking suspicion those accounts of Canaanite religious practices might be either greatly exagerrated or from rather biased sources. Maybe not but thats my immediate reaction would be if I read such accounts. Are there historical non-Christian accounts of these practices? As for asking me if its a shame Im guessing thats more of a rhetorical question thats supposed to make me think 'geez... I'm jumping to conclusions too quick I mean those Christians are just stopping some allegedly barbaric practices'. But sorry that doesn't cut the mustard. Your doing that whole favoured context thing again and it doesn't work because teachings like this were used outside of that context to justify persecuting other religions that weren't necessarily so bad. And before you tell me that religions such as the Mayans practiced human sacrifice I would point out that Christianity was for hundreds of years certainly not above burning a few hundred heretics a year and massacring various groups of non-Christians yet I doubt you see this as reason for the whole Christian faith to be exterminated. Also, while were on the subject of child sacrifice I dont see what you find so appaling about it given that in the old testament God apparently thought it fair to kill the firstborn child of everyone in Egypt because of something the pharaoh done...

Regarding the paragraph about there being no teaching in the bible suggesting Christians do anything but polite conversions I'll need to do some research before I accept that. It was my understanding that the Old Testament is quite literally chock a block with Gods smiting and general disapproval of various people which seems to me like it might be accompanied by some message about how people who don't believe in him are inferior and perfectly acceptable subjects for mass murder. Still I might be wrong I'll get back to you.

As for your observation its no problem and I don't consider it offensive I mean its just your opinion so don't worry I don't get all worked up about people having an opinion. I don't quite agree with your assesment in that I do indeed think some practices are 'wrong' but generally your right I do think of proper religion as being a more internal matter. Thats probably because Im rather heavily influenced by Buddhism and I wont deny that. Oh and I would also contend the intolerance of religion is rather unlike the intolerance of false information because its based on faith. Belief that the bible is the word of God and belief that thus God wants people not to be homosexual and so on, having those views is ok but I'm afraid just because they are religious doesn't mean they are above criticism. Discrimination because your religion teaches it doesn't make it ok in my book.

 

Imagine how I feel then

Homer, just in case you missed post #205, I thought I show you 'evidence' that aikiMac does indeed question his own beliefs:

Regarding the Egyptian plague thing, did anyone else in the UK see that TV documentary about the exodus and the plagues etc that was on a while back? They basically seemed to be suggesting that in fact, the last plague came after the Jews left. They also said it wasn't actually a plague, they suggested that it was describing a battle that happened between the escaping Jews and the Egyptians, not in the 'Red' sea but in the 'Reed' sea. They said the two words are very simillar in Hebrew.

They suggested that it was the reeds that parted and that it describes an ambush on the Egyptians. Pharoahs son wasn't a young child when this happened, he was an adult and had taken over running the country day to day and was in fact, commander of the Egyptian army. There's a good chance that had the army gone after the Jews, he would have been leading it and may have been killed in the resulting battle. He certainly wasn't the innocent that tradition describes. I don't remember them saying it but I wonder if it was generally the firstborn son that join the army hence the idea that they were wiped out.

 

How do you know i have presented this contradiction before?
Was your reply directed to me?
How do you know i've even seen your 'reply?'