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.
* 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.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
Last edited by Omega Vision on Oct 30th, 2010 at 02:38 AM
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
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.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
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 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.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 29th, 2010 08:39 AM
most of them i find silly and funny...
