Haha, this thread is the only thing keeping me on Forgehub anymore... But I remember the old debate forum... Lol, good times... And by good times I mean mad, furious, angry times...
Okay, I dont have time for all of these, but I will take a crack at a few. Who is the father of Joseph? Thats not a contradiction, its all in the wording. Heli was actually Marys father. >Is there a Contradiction in the Genealogies of Luke and Matthew? Who was at the tomb? These arent even contradictions. There are 3 accounts here, while all three state Mary Magdalenes presence but dont have the same names listed, they dont deny the presence of the people mentioned in other verses. Basically, not all 3 accounts name every person there but they dont say "This person was there and nobody else". Moses's personality Are you serious? That is basically saying he is the most humble man of the earth, then later he gets angry. How is that a contradiction? Pretty desperate reach for a contradiction. Rightous live? PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree." This is refering to living eternaly in the "Kingdom of God" Meaning the death of our human body doesnt mean the end. Verse 13 says, "...They will flourish in the courts of our God" ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart." This passage is a denunciation to the corrupt spiritual leaders of Isreal of that time. Just read the verses before and after this one. Or just finish it, "... devout men are taken away, and noone understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil". Its saying that the leaders were "blind" and living with evil ways straying from God and the righteouss were being saved from the leaders actions. Once again, not a contradiction. As a Christian, death of the body isnt death at all. The live eternally in the Kingdom of God. Heaven. Jesus' first sermon plain or mount? MAT 5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...." LUK 6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..." This "Plain" is just a level spot in the mountain side. Luke 6: 12-13: "One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them..." This was just before versus 17 to 20 clearly stating they were on a mountainside prior to "going down with them". Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: Yeah, its not literal here. They were believed to have feet before this. As punishment, they were removed and the snake is now forced to slither around on its stomach, "eating dust". Some of these so called contradictions are ridiculous or silly. "Snails do not melt", "Rabbits do not chew their cud". Is that really your hardcore evidence that God is not real? Just a little further reading, or back tracking disproves several of these examples. Edit: Its like this; Sex's initial purpose is for producing children. Yes, it feels good and is awesome and stuff, but producing is the main purpose. Now, that is only possible with a man and women. Thats that. No man can get pregnate period. No pregnancy can be caused by oral or anal sex. So its pretty obvious that sex was intended for women and men together. Its like saying a rifle can kill a deer, but it can also kill a human so we should all have the right to kill humans if we feel like it. This is my opinion, which I do get from the Bible, and thats how I feel. Hate it or not. Sorry.
Yes, because I compiled all those examples myself, then I made that site. Hardcore. What's this at the top though? [Editor's note: Not everyone will agree that all of the listed "contradictions" are, in fact, contradictions. It is therefore up to the reader to use his/her own intelligence and decide for himself/herself what s/he can and will accept as a contradiction. In other words, you need not agree with what Meritt sees as a problem or contradiction. It should be kept in mind, however, that a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient god would reasonably be expected to have done a better job of it than the Bible had such a god inspired a book. In any case, lists such as this can be useful in serving as a springboard for further study. For more, see also: Biblical Errancy and Biblical Criticism.] Not very congruent for the infallible word of god. I guess they were metaphorical stalls and horses.
Well, once again its in the wording. This link explains it plain as day bro. How many stalls and horsemen? - Bible Contradiction Refuted
I'm glad you have a sensible reason for not liking gays and gay sex, other than the fact they/ it makes you feel uncomfortable. I'm sure the comparison between murder and homosexual sex was entirely unintended, or else you'd be some kind of intolerant zealot.
I am not saying they are one in the same, no. Its just an example. Gay people dont make me uncomfortable. I know a few gay people myself (friends and somewhat close family) and I dont hate, bash, or ignore them. I just feel that it wasnt meant to be and I wish they wouldnt do it. But there is that free will to choose what you want. I am not here to decide nor force anyone to do or not do anything. I just have my views and they come from my Christian faith. On another note, I would like to see people stop referencing the old testament ideals now. Being Christian does not imply nor condone Stoning, raping or slavery. Thats where the New Tesament comes in. That was a different time and everything changed with the atonement. Saying things like "Christians dont have morals, they condone stoning, raping and murdering people who stray from the belief" just shows how little you know about Christianity.
when you're young you're dumb so debating an easy topic that requires no actual knowledge like religion feels relevant
Homosexuality is not just a form of sex, it's a form of love, and it deserves our respect for exactly that point. You tried to justify the view you have been advised to have, but you would never have picked this position, that does not agree with nature nor the society, if not for instruction. It should be disappointing to you to find that the history of the church is absolutely saturated in embarrassment of sex after your advocation of stringent the rules and practices governing it. Are virgins good people? Well that would depend on whether you consider it murder when you intervene in contact with the female egg. This might sound like the church is trying to be protective of women, but no. The early churches are all disgusted by the female reproductive system and it's monthly occurrences of bleeding. Because of this, most gods were born of virgins, and most more likely through cuts and partitions in the side (like Buddha) and not through the usual means. The idea that religion should subject those to shame who do not follow it's doctrine, should once again understand their ignorance and stupidity that has been upheld on their side, and the needless shame it bears on others for the sake of attempted indoctrination.
I think you misattributed the word knowledge there... If I know the entire Na'vi language that wouldn't be a particularly useful knowledge but I would be very knowledgeable in it.
True.. but I believe God presents imperfections in life to make people think, learn, and grow. For instance, certain people are more prone to alcoholism and anxiety. Do these people throw their fists up at God? Most of the time, yes. Should they disregard God as being unjust? No. Each person is judged based on different criteria. I believe if homosexuals have qualms with God, then that's between them and him so I try not to get in the way. Just to give you an idea as to what I'm talking about... I've had my fair share of panic attacks in fairly large groups of people and I often dread public speaking, but I don't render God as unjust. The history of the church is something to learn from, not something to misjudge from. Take psychology for instance, in the case of little albert, John Watson tested classical conditioning on a nine year old month baby. To make a long story short, albert experienced trauma that held severe consequences for the rest of his life. Just because events like the above happened doesn't mean I should disregard modern psychology because it has an imperfect history. Edit: and I realize the scale is different but my point can still be illustrated. See above It did at one point, and it's terrible that it did, can we get over it? I believe so, yes.
Is "it wasn't meant to be" your nice way of saying to gays that they are abominations in the eyes of your god? Seeing as the instructions of god in the Old Testament "don't count", which versus do you consider accurately describing the morality of homosexuality? I'm sure the bible isn't as reserved as your "it wasn't meant to be". It shows how little you follow your own doctrine. "Luke 19:27: But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Straight from the New Testament. But of course the dance will continue, because despite the fact that there the instructions are in plain English, and you believe every word of the bible is true, obviously it's not legal to kill people over their theistic beliefs, so out of a selfish desire to stay out of prison you invent an argument to get out of your moral obligation to slay non-believers before god.
Every single argument, no-matter how tangent, that exists in this thread, and possibly the entire history of creationism vs atheism, can be solved with a simple statement: It's metaphorical, you twats.
...except for the parts that aren't. Everything witty and "meta" that can be said has been said and its not like discussion would just stop with this statement and be like..."by joe...he's right, let's all hold hands and sing the songs of our fore-fathers"
I swear, is there any thread you haven't gotten butt-hurt in? Lol. Anywho, just because it's "Meta" doesn't make it not true, and doesn't mean that I can post it. And I clearly didn't ask for the discussion to stop, so that point is illogical. And on your second point I would never hold hands with you, or sing with you. I would imagine that you are a terrible singer.
To be fair, even if you accept the Bible as a metaphor (which obviously isn't a clear cut discussion), the existence of non-existence of a deity itself is still unanswered, and tbh the discussions around Bible interpretation largely serve to form basis for that argument anyway, so yeah...
Well, to be honest, proving any kind of Deity exists, if said deity is outside of our realm of perception, which he/she/it would have to be, then it's impossible to prove or disprove. That's why, though you can "prove" that most specific religions are wrong, or ill-founded, you cannot disprove Vague deism. But in any event, since you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a unknowable deity, we are therefore left with atheism, the belief that no sentient God or gods exist, or traditional Creationalist beliefs. Now, you could easily goad me into an argument here, but that's not the point. If you're an atheist, the Bible is an excellent teaching tool, full of the morals that it takes to craft a well balanced society. I cannot speak on other religious texts, because I haven't read any of them. Even christians admit that most of Jesus' "stories" are simply metaphors, used to get a point across, no matter how tenuous. So either way, it is just a big metaphor for morality.
True, but the argument still isn't solved. An argument being un-solvable doesn't equate to dismissing it; as Matty said it doesn't even have to be resolved, it's about exploring your own ideas and those of others, which again helps you examine your own. As someone who drifted away from religion at an early age, I've come to understand my own views so much more, and even develop them significantly, through discussions like this. @Bolded: that's a leap of logic. I agree about the value and even legitimacy of interpreting as metaphor, but even if you accept this viewpoint it isn't as simple as you're making out. There are well established schools of Bible interpretation, mapping the history of the text and different interpretations, but very few people who actually put much thought towards it straight up accept that the whole thing is one big metaphor. Basically: I feel like, whilst there's a lot of merit to what you're saying (and I even agree with it in many key senses), you're oversimplifying for the rhetorical sake of a short, sharp post.
Yes, I agree with that completely. You wouldn't have caught me replying so sardonically to any member that I thought could have a conversation without being aggressive and insulting. Like we're doing now, trading ideas back in forth in a calm, relaxed, but open manner. I think we misunderstood each other, forgive me if I worded that in a confusing way. I didn't mean that because we can't prove that any form of Deism exists or doesn't exist, that it's completely invalid. In fact, that's what I myself believe in, but that's not the topic of discussion this moment. I was simply saying, since we cannot prove or disprove anything about deism (though we could go back and forth for hours about it), in an effort to save time I was trying to keep the idea simple, by only applying it to established beliefs, mostly "christian", and sincere atheism. Well yes, I've often found that keeping things as simple as possible is the best way to translate an idea to an audience. Deep thinking people like you are, of course, an exception I suppose. Ironic, if you think about it
but were on page 44. at least once somewhere in this thread i've made an argument against everything you said.
While being concise is good, if you oversimplify some complex issue enough then all meaning of what you said is lost and no one will understand what you mean at all.