Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It seems like every anti christian says there are so many contradictions in the bible that it has to be wrong, so prove it. Name them. Hell, name just one.

When herochat goes back online you need to join it. They'll love you.

Show me a biblical contradiction and I will explain it away..

Originally posted by long pig
It seems like every anti christian says there are so many contradictions in the bible that it has to be wrong, so prove it. Name them. Hell, name just one.

Show me where the bible is right too then. Please. I'm waiting to see that giant ass whale that Jonah apparently lived in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLJ7ffhznaU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFY1EZMs5g4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32limypMt7s

Too many to post:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

* it's also too many to answered... most of them i find silly and funny...

Originally posted by peejayd
* it's also too many to answered... most of them i find silly and funny...

How about just the first one on Shakya's list?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

* take a look at #16... if you carefully read, sex outside marriage is not adultery but fornication... and if you take a prostitute as a wife, it's not adultery and it's not fornication... am i right?

Personally I've never understood the point of a literal interpretation of the Bible, or the need to defend or attack faith with logic when faith is in of itself an illogical thing.

But while we're on the subject the many contradictions in the Bible are far less damning to a literalist than are the omissions.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Personally I've never understood the point of a literal interpretation of the Bible, or the need to defend or attack faith with logic when faith is in of itself an illogical thing. Shhhhh. You're making too much sense.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Shhhhh. You're making too much sense.
Oh right...I got to stop doing that....


...Cars make you go faster than people!

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Personally I've never understood the point of a literal interpretation of the Bible, or the need to defend or attack faith with logic when faith is in of itself an illogical thing.

But while we're on the subject the many contradictions in the Bible are far less damning to a literalist than are the omissions.

Some stories can easily be taken metaphorically, and routinely are. Large sections and passages of the Bible, however, are clearly intended to be taken at their word in a strict sense. This could be the story of Jesus, or the many decrees about God or by God (either himself or through an intermediary).

The line also blurs when some sections defy the literal/metaphoric label. If I tell you to do something or else it's a sin, how else can it be taken besides literal? Many passages are arguments over interpretation where there are simply 2-3 different ways it could be interpreted in a literal sense, none of them metaphoric.

Also, hardcore literalists (the easiest ones to defeat with sound logic) see no contradictions, but those usually aren't who we're dealing with. You're right that logic won't appeal to them, because their views are based on faith that rewards belief in the face of contradictory evidence. But it is usually people who see the Bible as contradictory and flawed against those who wish to vindicate the Bible in some sense, not necessarily in an always-literal way.

At the core of your argument is that faith can't be attacked with logic, which is alos true enough. But claims made by those who have that faith CAN be brought down through logic, which is the issue. Same with religion in general: God can't be disproven, but religions and their claims/tenets can be.

So I appreciate the rose-tinted glasses glasses you're wearing here when you attempt to frame it this way. Would that it were so simple. But, frankly, it doesn't work as a broad way to excuse the problems being discussed in this thread.

^ I tend to subscribe to Soren Kierkegard's view regarding Christianity, that it's all a matter of faith and that logic or reason should never come to play.

I should note though that I'm a functional agnostic.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
^ I tend to subscribe to Soren Kierkegard's view regarding Christianity, that it's all a matter of faith and that logic or reason should never come to play.

I can't imagine a more dangerous position. That inevitably requires you to have a person (at a minimum the person who first tells you about God) who you can never question, if you do then you're applying something other than faith.

I guess you could technically be born in total isolation and never question the world around you, always crediting things to a divine force, but I seriously doubt that applies to even a small number of religious people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can't imagine a more dangerous position. That inevitably requires you to have a person (at a minimum the person who first tells you about God) who you can never question, if you do then you're applying something other than faith.

I guess you could technically be born in total isolation and never question the world around you, always crediting things to a divine force, but I seriously doubt that applies to even a small number of religious people. That's why its called a leap of faith.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's why its called a leap of faith.

That doesn't address my point at all. If it's entirely a matter of faith, and you didn't develop the idea of God all on your own then there is at least one flawed, mortal, human being that can say anything and have you believe it.

I like how he makes this thread then never comes back to answer to it haha.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
^ I tend to subscribe to Soren Kierkegard's view regarding Christianity, that it's all a matter of faith and that logic or reason should never come to play.

I should note though that I'm a functional agnostic.

Again, faith itself can't be refuted on logical grounds, but claims made by religions and those of faith can. Because any commonly-practiced religion isn't just an abstract faith, but one whose God is actively involved in the world, and whose teachings attempt to affect and influence the world. You're only looking at the two worldviews in an abstract sense, not in a functional one.

Originally posted by Kaibs
I like how he makes this thread then never comes back to answer to it haha.

That happens fairly often in this forum, and most of us don't really care (though it's only been a few days, so LP's to be given some slack here). If there's a topic to discuss, we'll happily discuss it if we're interested. LP doesn't have to ever show up in this thread again for it to be constructive.

Originally posted by Digi
Again, faith itself can't be refuted on logical grounds, but claims made by religions and those of faith can. Because any commonly-practiced religion isn't just an abstract faith, but one whose God is actively involved in the world, and whose teachings attempt to affect and influence the world. You're only looking at the two worldviews in an abstract sense, not in a functional one.


That's not entirely true. A lot of Eastern religions don't fall into that mold.

which?

Originally posted by inimalist
which?
Hinduism. Especially when the Caste system was the status quo.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's not entirely true. A lot of Eastern religions don't fall into that mold.

Most of the religion that make no claims about god are functionally atheistic anyway.

Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism are essentially philosophies of life. So is Jainism, but perhaps more religious.

Shinto makes testable claims about spirits so its out the window.

Hinduism and Sikhism seem like the only well known eastern faiths with truly untestable gods at their core.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Hinduism. Especially when the Caste system was the status quo.

the religion of Hinduism makes many, many testable claims about the nature of reality.

The caste system itself is one of these.

Originally posted by inimalist
the religion of Hinduism makes many, many testable claims about the nature of reality.

The caste system itself is one of these.
I was more referring to the part where Digi categorized religion as having an active God with followers with moral schema emphasizing how things 'ought' to be. At least that's what I got from his post.

ok, fair enough, he extends that to talk about being able to disprove some of the "active" qualities, which is what I thought you were contesting

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Most of the religion that make no claims about god are functionally atheistic anyway.

Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism are essentially philosophies of life. So is Jainism, but perhaps more religious.

Shinto makes testable claims about spirits so its out the window.

Hinduism and Sikhism seem like the only well known eastern faiths with truly untestable gods at their core.
Buddhism, at least certain sects of Buddhism, isn't atheistic at all, or at least not in the sense that they claim there are no Gods. There are all kinds of mentions to Gods and Godlike entities in the Pali Canon. They just (according to Buddhist thought) aren't worth worshiping.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Buddhism, at least certain sects of Buddhism, isn't atheistic at all, or at least not in the sense that they claim there are no Gods. There are all kinds of mentions to Gods and Godlike entities in the Pali Canon. They just (according to Buddhist thought) aren't worth worshiping.
But those Gods aren't really gods in the sense of some kind of being "above" man. They're more like super powerful forms of life than anything transcendent. Sort of like worshiping aliens.

Originally posted by long pig
It seems like every anti christian says there are so many contradictions in the bible that it has to be wrong, so prove it. Name them. Hell, name just one.


How long is that pig, anyway?

Originally posted by King Kandy
But those Gods aren't really gods in the sense of some kind of being "above" man. They're more like super powerful forms of life than anything transcendent. Sort of like worshiping aliens.
A little bit like that. But some Mahayana Buddhists hold the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara in the role of Supreme Lord of the Cosmos, and he's linked to the first Buddha.

He's more of a God than he is a higher form of life.

As far as I can tell from research, that's very much a minority view. Amitabha Buddha would be a better example. In any case, if there is anything that could be considered a god in the transcendent sense in Buddhism, its not the Devas.

Should be worth noting that Taoism has gods by the boatload. But you can also follow it without acknowledging any gods at all. I think that's mainly the thing that separates eastern religions, the fact that their principles and cosmologies are not mutually dependent.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's not entirely true. A lot of Eastern religions don't fall into that mold.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I was more referring to the part where Digi categorized religion as having an active God with followers with moral schema emphasizing how things 'ought' to be. At least that's what I got from his post.

I was speaking about Western religions for the most part, and thought that was clear (my reply came after you posited a theory of Christianity, after all), but there are arguable claims made by Eastern religions as well, ones that don't involve sheer faith. So I hope you'll address my central point. Because I dislike the "separate realms" argument when religion freely and often pertains to the physical world. Saying that logic can't impede on religious territory is naive. Cherry-picking religions and/or religious tenets that are based solely on faith does not prove the point, because it's only looking at a portion of the debate.

My understanding of Zen Buddhism is that 'God' isn't a focus because that would be a distraction from the Path, which is essentially an attention-training methodology. Ie, dogma is just another drunk monkey to contend with.

No matter what there will always be contradiction which is why there are so many different Religion in this world.

Sometimes, concepts involved in questions asked just fly completely over your head, don't they?

Originally posted by skekUng
Sometimes, concepts involved in questions asked just fly completely over your head, don't they?

Do you think she gets that?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
No matter what there will always be contradiction which is why there are so many different Religion in this world.
And yet I bet you still keep acting like yours is the real one.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you think she gets that?

Did I use too many words?

Originally posted by skekUng
Did I use too many words?

You did use words.