Guest MacGyver Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I am pretty sure that I am going to be asked by someone if I know how many times you have "heard this crap before" or "explained this stuff before" or something, but I don't really care. I am constantly bombarded by how many contradictions, inconsistencies, logical fallacies, faux pas', and lies there are in the Bible. My "Christian goggles" don't let any of that through. My "rational goggles" don't let any of that through. No one I know can actually point any out to me. So please instruct me. I would like your opinions of Scripture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JP1283 Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Funny...my rational goggles don't let Christianity through! Have at him, guys. JP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 your "scriptures" features the following : talking snakes talking donkeys genocide incest and zombies ! now that would make a kickass B-movie (featuring John Carradine and Karen Black, directed by Roger Corman) but as a guide to live by or a historical document ...it doesn`t hold water sorry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I am constantly bombarded by how many contradictions, inconsistencies, logical fallacies, faux pas', and lies there are in the Bible. My "Christian goggles" don't let any of that through. My "rational goggles" don't let any of that through. No one I know can actually point any out to me. So please instruct me. I would like your opinions of Scripture.Fresh out of the gate, the New Testament falls over itself by giving us a lineage of Jesus' male progenetors (Mt.1:6-16). Why is this bad? Well, I could point out that an entirely different genealogy exists from in the book of Luke in verses 3:21-31. And as fascinating as that is, that's not the problem. The problem is that Jesus shouldn't have a lineage of progenetors. He was born of a virgin. The bloodline that was supposed to be preserved through David has no relevence to Jesus. Both end in Joseph, and Joseph is not related by blood to Jesus. Oops. Oh, and your Christian Goggles® remind me of the Bush Goggles. Here, I've modified the Bush Goggles into Christian Goggles for the amusement of all. Enjoy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antihero Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I am pretty sure that I am going to be asked by someone if I know how many times you have "heard this crap before" or "explained this stuff before" or something, but I don't really care. I am constantly bombarded by how many contradictions, inconsistencies, logical fallacies, faux pas', and lies there are in the Bible. My "Christian goggles" don't let any of that through. My "rational goggles" don't let any of that through. No one I know can actually point any out to me. So please instruct me. I would like your opinions of Scripture. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All neatly ripped from: Skeptics Annotated Bible Contradiction: One God: "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me" Many Gods: "And God said, let us make man in our image" Inconsistency: One Son of God: "God sent his only begotten son into the world" Many Sons of God: "The sons of God came in unto the daughters of men" - Sexy Logical Fallacy: God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day Faux Pas: God likes Abel's dead animals better than Cain's fruits and vegetables. Why? Well, no reason is given, but it probably has something to do with the amount of pain, blood, and gore involved Lie: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MacGyver Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Fresh out of the gate, the New Testament falls over itself by giving us a lineage of Jesus' male progenetors (Mt.1:6-16). Why is this bad? Well, I could point out that an entirely different genealogy exists from in the book of Luke in verses 3:21-31. And as fascinating as that is, that's not the problem. The problem is that Jesus shouldn't have a lineage of progenetors. He was born of a virgin. The bloodline that was supposed to be preserved through David has no relevence to Jesus. Both end in Joseph, and Joseph is not related by blood to Jesus. Oops. Oh, and your Christian Goggles® remind me of the Bush Goggles. Here, I've modified the Bush Goggles into Christian Goggles for the amusement of all. Enjoy... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Please do not think of me as a Bush lover. He is a shady individual and I want nothing to do with him. Do you understand covental institutions? When Joseph married Mary they entered into a covenant and Jesus, being Mary's son, was then Joseph's son covenentally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Um, that doesn't work under Torah law. The baby has to be the blood decendant of the father in order to retain tribal status. Furthermore, one of the specific requirements for the messiah was that he be born on his father's side of King David (II Samuel 7:12-16, I Chronicles 17:11, Psalm 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17). Adoptions don't count. You can't get in through the back door with Mary. And I wasn't calling you a Bush lover, but I was paralleling you with our hand-waving commander in chief who will not be convinced that he is wrong, even when it is blatantly obvious. You may not be a Bush lover, but you are rather bush-like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Please do not think of me as a Bush lover. He is a shady individual and I want nothing to do with him. Do you understand covental institutions? When Joseph married Mary they entered into a covenant and Jesus, being Mary's son, was then Joseph's son covenentally. I hate these scriptural debates and will let those with divinity school backgrounds hash this stuff out with you. I will point out though that your very statement here represents the "goggles" cited by yourself and the other poster. You refuse to concede a point and will twist and turn the meanings of words to prove your side true no matter the evidence against it. You are not a student in life you are a defender of your beliefs to the death. Facing a flaw. Ooops! Better patch up that flaw. A little redefinition here, a little touch of paint there. You can't learn if you do this. But you didn't come here to learn, you came to win. It's sad really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sokudo Ningyou Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Here's a good inconsistancy from our friend Aaron McGruder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Would someone please correct me if I'm wrong here? The title to this thread doesn't coincide with the question(s) being asked in the initial post. The Bible: Fact or Fiction, blah blah blah Contradictions... Now, if we take the title of the thread and transform it into a question, I can see how a lot of this could get cleared up rather quickly. Q: Is the Bible fact or fiction? A: It is neither fact nor fiction, but a mixture of the two. It is what we call, myth. Can I get an Awoman, my brothers and sisters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nirrti Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Here's a good inconsistancy from our friend Aaron McGruder. Jesus at my last judgement: "I love you my precious child......Now go into the lake of fire to burn for all eternity you worker of inequity!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Q: Is the Bible fact or fiction? A: It is neither fact nor fiction, but a mixture of the two. It is what we call, myth. Oh oh oh oh!!!! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!!! Is that like the Iliad and the Odyssey?! Historical narrative with embelishments? You mean that's found in the Bible, too!? *scholarly nod* Yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sokudo Ningyou Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Would someone please correct me if I'm wrong here? The title to this thread doesn't coincide with the question(s) being asked in the initial post. Now, if we take the title of the thread and transform it into a question, I can see how a lot of this could get cleared up rather quickly. Q: Is the Bible fact or fiction? A: It is neither fact nor fiction, but a mixture of the two. It is what we call, myth. Can I get an Awoman, my brothers and sisters? Well, you know, when you read the bloody thing, and find things like Lot's wife being turned to a pillar of salt for looking back when they were escaping a fiery torment, which sounds quite a bit like Eurydice being taken back to Hades when she looked back while she and Orpheus were escaping a fiery torment, you can't help but wonder why the Bible is supposed to be any truer than what's been labeled mythology in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 All too easy... Start with the geneologies of Joseph in Luke and Matthew. They are completely different going back to David. Strange since both were actually there and witnessed all that they wrote. In 2Kings 10:30, God commends Jehu for obeying His orders and killing Ahab and all of his family; then in Hosea 1:4 God is pissed that Jehu murdered Ahab and his family. Here's a good essay on the subject. Two different prophets, two different opinions. Here's one list of contradictions, and another, and TONS more here... The accounts of the resurrection are all different and mutually exclusive. They cannot all be correct. You might think that if this was the MAIN EVENT that God was going to judge humans on, He'd be able to get at least 2 of the stories to match up. With 4 or 5 different accounts, we are all condemned to eternal torture if we don't buy at least one of the stories and ignore the errors in the others. Now THAT's a greater love... Even doctrine is conflicting. There are hundreds of different Christian denominations based on the same bible, but with different doctrine because they emphasize different verses and ignore others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nirrti Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Well, you know, when you read the bloody thing, and find things like Lot's wife being turned to a pillar of salt for looking back when they were escaping a fiery torment, which sounds quite a bit like Eurydice being taken back to Hades when she looked back while she and Orpheus were escaping a fiery torment, you can't help but wonder why the Bible is supposed to be any truer than what's been labeled mythology in the first place. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And isn't the story about Noah and the flood in the the Babylonian Code of Hamarabi? The epic of Gilgamesh also has a similar account about a great flood and a man and his family who escaped in a small boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 And isn't the story about Noah and the flood in the the Babylonian Code of Hamarabi?The epic of Gilgamesh also has a similar account about a great flood and a man and his family who escaped in a small boat. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But this is PROOF that the things in the Bible occurred, remember? They based their culture on the BIBLE and then the Babylonians got it slightly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nirrti Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 But this is PROOF that the things in the Bible occurred, remember? They based their culture on the BIBLE and then the Babylonians got it slightly wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh no, you're mistaken. It was the Babylonians that got it right. Everyone knows that a story about Israelites has no credibility but Babylonians, that's a legitimate culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I am constantly bombarded by how many contradictions, inconsistencies, logical fallacies, faux pas', and lies there are in the Bible. My "Christian goggles" don't let any of that through. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Some theologians use the contradictions found in the bible as a guide for their study. The question is not, if there are contradictions, but what kind of conclussion to make out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heimdall Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 MacGyver, dude, your gospels don't even agree as to when your tin-plated demigod was born.... There is, at the very least, an 11 year discrepancy between Luke's and Matthew's birth stories (I love how they lifted all those mythological flourishes from Mithra, Krishna, Osiris, etc). Check out this thread for enlightment on the matter http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=1230 When you've found a non-mythical answer, let me know - Heimdall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Please do not think of me as a Bush lover. He is a shady individual and I want nothing to do with him. Do you understand covental institutions? When Joseph married Mary they entered into a covenant and Jesus, being Mary's son, was then Joseph's son covenentally. That fact is Irrelevant to the "Bloodline" If I adopt a Child, Yes the Child is my child, however the fact still remains that the bloodline is not mine, that child doesn't all of a sudden adopt a bloodline, My family medical history and what not is irrelevant to that Childs medical history. It was said that he would come from the Blood line of David, not adopted, Bloodline is very important in your book, that's why they give the lineage all the way from Moses, Abraham, David... All of that would be irrelevant if "GOD" didn't come from them now wouldn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- AUB - Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 nirrti has it right, there was no Israelites, they're a mythical race, conjured up by canannite's for a "right of conquest" claim. They took much older stories from Babylon and Syria, this is empirical fact. To claim these biblical plagiarist came first is like xtians claiming pagan resurrection and salvation myths came after xtianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 AUB...how dare you suggest that! You know damn well that Satan created those myths in order to screw up people like yourself, me and others so that we could not receive the message of salvation from god. :-) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ha, ha, ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- AUB - Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Special pleading, Justin Martyr first came up with that one, but all the elements in the bible come from earlier religions and philosophies, that is a fact. And the church has known this from day one, let alone the freethinkers. Contraditions are one thing, the plagerism is far more damaging to the bible's reputation, conclusive proof that it's a fraud. Here is a classic example of how apologists lie about the "uniqueness" and "originality" of their stories, showing that it's not ignorance of the facts but deception they are guilty off, given the pagan examples are so well known, they couldn’t have missed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 O.K. just a couple of simple ones: 1. Please supply the archaeological evidence that 2 million israelites wandered through the desert for 40 years. 2. In the book of Acts, it is stated that the risen Christ first showed himself to Cephas, and then to the twelve. Who were the twelve? According to the gospel narrative, Judas was dead at that point. Sounds like one that snuck past the editors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Correction: it's not in the book of Acts - it's 1 COR 15:5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts