Pariah Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 I'll keep this short: What do you guys think is the most effective or ridiculous Bible contradiction for use in debates against Christians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kirbytime Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. John 8:14 Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true. The word for witness and record is the exact same Greek word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philo Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Much of it is a contradiction, but I'm not sure that matters too much any more for the believer. If anything, many believers would probably claim that it requires a special kind of wisdom to discern contraditory passages. Here's a great link if you all aren't familiar with it that has bunches of contradictions: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm Personally, I'm flabergasted by the larger contradictions in the Bible. I think of the story of the flood and how God "regretted" making mankind. His conclusion to the problem of evil? Kill every last man, woman, child and chicken. Why not just get rid of evil? ALso, why didn't this "all-knowing" god foresee what would happen to people after he unleashed the curse on them? The texts where Jesus meets up with the Samaratan woman and calls her a dog is a bit distressing. Not sure I'd expect a god to call his own creation a dog. Jesus was quick to call the educated priests a bunch of snakes as well. There are many texts that reveal Jesus' derogatory attitude towards others, which are a bit of a contradiction considering he was thought to be god. The invention of a devil is quite the contradiction. If God is the creator of everything, and evil is a thing, then didn't god create evil? Lamatations 3:38 states it pretty clearly . . . "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" 1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. The above verse is a bit strange. Here's how I read it. God used his intelligence to create a condition in which people could not understand him when they used their own intelligence. And he was quite pleased about doing this. 2Th 2:11-12 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Here Paul tells us that God is purposely creating a delusion and offering up a lie for doubters. And why would God lie and send doubters in to a dilusional state . . . so that they will be purposely damned! Better end here before I'm up all night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I'll keep this short: What do you guys think is the most effective or ridiculous Bible contradiction for use in debates against Christians? I think the prize would go to the Jesus riding the donkey. The author of Matthew not only contradicts the other Gospels regarding the no of donkey, but also showed that he misunderstood the hebrew parallism of Zech 9:9, thereby making Jesus look like Circus freak who rides two animals at the same time. More explanation can be found here A Tale Of Two Donkeys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I'll keep this short: What do you guys think is the most effective or ridiculous Bible contradiction for use in debates against Christians? It's a Love/ Hate relationship... 1 John 4:7-8: (7) Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. (8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. Luke 6:27-36 :[27] "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, [28] bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. [29] If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. [30] Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. [31] Do to others as you would have them do to you. ----------------------------------- Matthew 10:35-36: For I am come to SET A MAN AT VARIANCE AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND THE DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND THE DAUGHTER IN LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER IN LAW. And a MAN'S FOES SHALL BE THEY OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD. - Luke 14:26: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philo Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I think a lot of Christians don't understand that Jesus was thought to fulfill the Davinic prophesies. The Jews were looking for the person who would help them overthrow their oppressors, who at this time in history were the Romans. Still oppressed by the Romans as late as 79 A.D. the early Christians softened the concept of Jesus to avoid persecution. They had to prove to the Romans that Jesus was not a fulfillment of prophesies designed to overthrow the ROman government. His kingdom was rather, not of this earth. Unfortunately, the early Christians could not purge out of the texts the evidence that Jesus was indeed, a militant. Hence the following contradictions: Blessed are the peacemakers, Mat 5:9/Think not that I have come to send peace on earth . . . Mat 10:34 Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other Matt 5:39/Suppose ye that I have come to give peace to the earth? I will tell you, but rather division Luke 12 ALl that take the sword shall perish by the sword Mat 26/He that hath no sword, let him sell his garments and buy one. Luke 22 (It's well know that at least two of Jesus' disciples carried weapons. Here Jesus advises his disciples that they may need more weapons.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonkey Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 In my opinion, many of the Biblical contradictions trotted out on the internet are pretty weak, falling prey as they do to the very same interpretive mistakes made by fundies; i.e, they rip verse out of their textual, cultural, and literay contexts. This is especially true when dealing with the sayings of Jesus, which use all sorts of metaphorical and hyperbolic language. I guess these passages could be useful in dealing with adherents of Biblical literalism and plenary inspiration, but most Christians I know don't fit well into these categories. The best way to make a case against the Bible that I've found is to do some research into academic Biblical criticism (www.bibledudes.com is a pretty good place to start). Upon close analysis, it's easy to show how the books of the Bible were shaped, not by the hand of God, but by the hand of the writers. It's hard for me to explain how this approach works. Basically, I think so-called contradictions tend to be ineffective, partly because their so easy to explain away. Instead, I would look at overall dispcrepancies in perspective, for instance, Jesus as depicted in John versus Jesus as depicted in the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matt, & Luke). The Biblical writers didn't recieve their words from God, neither did they make them up. They pulled content from other written documents, borrowed myths from other religions, and wrote with specific agenda in mind. So instead of pulling out two verse and nitpicking out some contradiction, I would point out how the Biblical writings are the product of all sorts of human processes (again, go to bibledudes.com for a crash course). I'm not saying that contradictions aren't actually contradictions; I'm saying that they're not always effective, and we spend too much time on them when we could address other problems with the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I tend to agree with you, Fonkey... complex historical criticism did it for me, not verse by verse contradiction comparisons... because I knew all the explanations for contradictions, even major ones. I doubt most intelligent (or particulary adept at cognitive dissonance) Christians are the same way. This is also why I keep on reading and reading on the historical Jesus and such. One thing that fascinates me is the difference of the Jesus portrayed in John compared to the synoptic gospels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philo Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Looking back on it I'd also have to agree with fonkey and pandora. My education is in religion, and by the time I got through the forth year of biblical criticism my faith was pretty much shattered. Still, I have to wonder if a person has to be ready or at least looking for the truth. You have to have an open mind and really appreciate information and knowledge. The other thing I wonder about these days is that Christianity has for the most part invented its own brand intelligence. I wouldn't call it faith, and I would't call it knowledge. It's more that disciples are taught that they have a special kind of wisdom to understand the Bible beyond using normal means of intelligence. At times I'll flip through the channels and watch the TV evangelists. It's amazing how many Christian sects use a totally different vocabulary and line of reasoning to get their point across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonkey Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Still, I have to wonder if a person has to be ready or at least looking for the truth. You have to have an open mind and really appreciate information and knowledge. Absolutely. If you're determined and the stakes are high, you can harmonize anything. I think what started my journey away from Christianity was severe doubt in the goodness of the God of the Bible, which led to increased open-mindedness and curiosity. My old beliefs were becoming increasingly distressing, so I started looking for alternative explanations. I wonder if this was that same for anyone else? Another thing which really affected me was when I asked myself, "if the Bible was not the inspired, inerrent, infallible Word of God... what would be different?" The answer, of course, is not much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonkey Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Blessed are the peacemakers, Mat 5:9/Think not that I have come to send peace on earth . . . Mat 10:34 Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other Matt 5:39/Suppose ye that I have come to give peace to the earth? I will tell you, but rather division Luke 12 I've seen a lot of people refer to these two passages (Mat 10 & Luke 12) as Biblical difficulties/contradictions/etc, but I don't really see them that way. First of all, Jesus often spoke hyperbolically, hence the use of the word "hate." While this is a blow to literalistic interpretations, I hardly think it discounts the idea of inspiration. Furthermore, these verses need to read in the context of the chapter in which they reside. In Matthew 10, Jesus talks extensively about persecution. When he says he has come not to bring peace, but a sword, he's not encouraging violence; he's saying that many of his followers will be rejected by their families because they have chosen to follow Christ. The Luke passage also seems to be making a similar point. These verse aren't saying you should be hateful, violent, or divisive; They're pointing out the cost of following Jesus. I know it sounds like I've switched teams here, but I get annoyed everytime someone pulls these verse out in order to discount the Bible, because I think they're pretty weak arguements. Does anyone have any other thoughts on the subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I know it sounds like I've switched teams here, but I get annoyed everytime someone pulls these verse out in order to discount the Bible, because I think they're pretty weak arguements. Does anyone have any other thoughts on the subject? Well what do you think about the one that I proposed, the one where Jesus rides 2 donkeys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artur Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 [name=philo' date='Apr 11 2006, 08:29 PM' post='161154]Looking back on it I'd also have to agree with fonkey and pandora. My education is in religion, and by the time I got through the forth year of biblical criticism my faith was pretty much shattered. Still, I have to wonder if a person has to be ready or at least looking for the truth. You have to have an open mind and really appreciate information and knowledge. The other thing I wonder about these days is that Christianity has for the most part invented its own brand intelligence. I wouldn't call it faith, and I would't call it knowledge. It's more that disciples are taught that they have a special kind of wisdom to understand the Bible beyond using normal means of intelligence. At times I'll flip through the channels and watch the TV evangelists. It's amazing how many Christian sects use a totally different vocabulary and line of reasoning to get their point across. Exactly. I wasn't in seminary, but I was a religion major. My faith was lost VERY gradually. It's even hard for me to pinpoint the time when I deconverted. Oh, and what I meant to say in my previous post is that I bet most intelligent Christians are the same way. Not because we were particularly entrenched or brainwashed, but because we are creative enough to come up with ways around all the soundbyte issues. That's how I think of most of this stuff... some people can be deconverted by a couple days doing research. I am much more skeptical by nature... it will take me years to go from position to position because I feel I need to give myself time to thoroughly research and contemplate the many layers of things as big as this. When newly ex-Christians come on here and say they lost their faith in a matter of months for only one or two reasons, or only emotional reasons (God sucks! God is a tyrant!!) I must admit that I worry about their stability. Not in a bad way... I just mean that I wonder what new wave of thinking will sway them next. I think these people tend to lose touch with why they believed in the first place. Once you forget, you are susceptible to emotional manipulation again, IMO. Fonkey... yes, I messed around with new belief systems for a while too. I never fully subscribed to any, but I tried liberal Christianity, Buddhism, and Unitarian/Universism. Since I never fully converted to any of them, they only lasted about a year each at most, but still, I read a lot during this time. The academic study of religion is the best preventative for getting sucked in again... not angry rants and soundbytes against Christianity. (I am in no way saying those things don't have a place... it's just something one needs to get past eventually, intellectually and emotionally.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philo Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Fonkey:I think what started my journey away from Christianity was severe doubt in the goodness of the God of the Bible I'm so glad you said this! I really think a person must give up Christianity if they want to be genuinely good and ethical towards others. Reminds me of this quote: I am halfway through Genesis, and quite appalled by the disgraceful behavior of all the characters involved, including God. - J. R. Ackerley I do disagree with you here: Furthermore, these verses need to read in the context of the chapter in which they reside. In Matthew 10, Jesus talks extensively about persecution. When he says he has come not to bring peace, but a sword, he's not encouraging violence; he's saying that many of his followers will be rejected by their families because they have chosen to follow Christ. Jesus and his followers were only one of many militant messiahs roaming the desert in those days. He was expected (like David) to crush the Romans with military force. At least a few of his disciples carried weapons. The fact that he needed weapons as protection seems bizarre. Even he claimed that his mission was to save the Israelites. What his exact motives were I'm not sure. But I do view him as militant with perhaps some Ghandi like qualities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philo Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Pandora: When newly ex-Christians come on here and say they lost their faith in a matter of months for only one or two reasons, or only emotional reasons (God sucks! God is a tyrant!!) I must admit that I worry about their stability. Not in a bad way... I just mean that I wonder what new wave of thinking will sway them next. I think the bigger we are the harder we fall. (Or, the more serious a person is about Christianity should equal the time it takes for them to get out). Personally, it took me at least a decade. I think a lot of people don't realize that even once they are out of Christianity they are still likely to retain some Christian ideas. You mentioned "anger" above. A lot of people stay angry with God years after they leave the church. But many are angry for no good reason. It was Christianity that gave them a false concept of God. (For example, perhaps they left the church because they realized that god did not answer prayers. But they will still be angry at this god that did not answer their prayers long after they "intellectually" no that god does not answer prayers.) Know what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonkey Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Well what do you think about the one that I proposed, the one where Jesus rides 2 donkeys Well, I'm not scholar, but it looks like a legitimate contradiction to me... There are good and bad contradictions, and I think we need to be careful to avoid the bad ones, otherwise it's just more arrows in the fundies' quiver. Jesus and his followers were only one of many militant messiahs roaming the desert in those days. He was expected (like David) to crush the Romans with military force. Now, I realize I'm going to sound like a jerk here and I apologize for that, but I personally have never encountered this theory of Jesus as a militant man of force. Could you give me some references? At least a few of his disciples carried weapons. I hardly think this means they were militaristic revolutionaries. The fact that he needed weapons as protection seems bizarre. Why? He was disliked enough by some people that he was killed (at least, according to books of the NT). Furthermore, were these weapons necessarily for JESUS' protection? Even he claimed that his mission was to save the Israelites. Good point, although this may not have been a political statement (alright, I'll admit this is a bit of a stretch) What his exact motives were I'm not sure. But I do view him as militant with perhaps some Ghandi like qualities. Huh? Militant AND Ghandi-like don't seem at all complimentary to me. Ghandi's mantra, as far as I know, was passive resistance (a viewpoint which was influenced by the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the NT Gospels). I recognize that Jesus is presented as having contradictory viewpoints on violence (one thing you haven't mentioned is the cleansing of the temple), however, I see little evidence to suggest that Jesus' goal was to overthrow the government by force, and I have yet to hear of any historical Jesus scholars who would claim such a thing (not that I'm very familiar in this area). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Wonder Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Really depends on the Christian, and what they believe. Some will find, e.g. Numbers, ch 31, to be an iron wedge slowly separating them from their faith. Others, like Martin Luther, will be driven quite insane (but not necessarily deconvert) by trying to figure out if one is saved by faith, or by works. Check (from here: http://www.carm.org/diff/Eph2_8.htm) 1. Saved by grace 1. (Ephesians 2:8-9) - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast." 2. (Rom. 3:20,28) - "because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin...28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." 3. (Galatians 2:16) - "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified." 2. Saved by works 1. (James 2:24) - "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." 2. (Matthew 19:1617) - "And behold, one came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" 17And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." The title of this website (" Selected Works of Martin Luther") is pretty funny for those who know something about Martin Luther. His works are of course, as filthy rags to me, and I'm not even a minor deity. Heh. Probably the most effective contradiction which the Christian is faced with reconciling is that which is encountered by those who try to both believe and read the Bible. One or the other is easy. Both, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Interesting thread. It is definitely hard to point out contradictions in a mushy book. So many things can be legitimately interpreted in more than 1 way. But that's the way soothsayers, prophets and mystics have talked throughout time in every culture. The reason is simple - you must keep things a little vague, or you'll get called on it. If John had said "The Apocalypse will happen 129 years from today", we'd all know it was bullshit. The # 1 rule of spiritual hoo-hah: never let 'em pin you down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonkey Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 [quot:27e name=All Gods Fail' date='Apr 12 2006, 11:54 PM' post='161631] The reason is simple - you must keep things a little vague, or you'll get called on it. If John had said "The Apocalypse will happen 129 years from today", we'd all know it was bullshit. No, because then we'd get people advocating "Year-age" eschatology, or pointing to a "Gap theory" of End-times prophecy After all, Jesus is clear enough already: "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Luke 21:32 "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." Luke 9:27 (These passages also appear in Matt & Mark, I believe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philo Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Fonkey asked: I personally have never encountered this theory of Jesus as a militant man of force. Could you give me some references? One source comes from Marvin Harris' (anthropologist) book, Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches. The Riddles of Culture. The Secret of the Prince of Peace is the chapter. He also wrote a good book called Our Kind. Regarding Jesus disciples carrying weapons, perhaps its just the think through things. Just can't imagine why a man (supposedly god and who was in the practice of performing miracles regularly) needed weapons as protection. I think most assume that Jesus was probably better than Ghandi in the ideals he stood for and what he considered to be his mission in life. Jesus did have a few good things to say, put I wouldn't consider him a passifist as much as Ghandi. Godless wonder. A quote from Luther: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 One source comes from Marvin Harris' (anthropologist) book, Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches. The Riddles of Culture. The Secret of the Prince of Peace is the chapter. BTW may I remind you and others, a lot of us are questioning whether he existed at all. So discussing that Jesus may been a militant means that you are assuming that he was actually real. What do you and Fonkey think?Did he exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 I think that the "best" contradictions is Ezekial's Salvation vs Paul's Salvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kal-el Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 One of my favorites is courtesy the Christian Dogma's alphamale. Paul asserts that there's nothing good about him: Romans 7:18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepblue Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 One good example - the cursing of the fig tree. Did it happen immediately, or after a while? Another - the words put above the cross. All 4 gospels have different phrases. Or another - the cock crowing. Did it crow once or twice? Or another - the resurrection stories. I have yet to read a convincing harmony of all the accounts. Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts