Conflicting statements in the bible

[Brian37]

No, it isn't........................................

Sure it is, I am claiming morals are not relative, you’re taking the positive position that they are, I need proof.

Do you and I share the same morals?

We are supposed to live by the same moral law, yes.

Proof of what...? Is/ought? Either you take that or you leave it. Your call.

You’re the one committing the is/ought fallacy, not me.

Indeed, now get to work

Waiting for you to refute the historically accepted position….still waiting…

No more or less so than "theistic morals". Neither collection of morals are likely to be arbitrary -or- meaningless...even if the justifications offered -are- ( I like to leave room for people who simply cant articulate their thoughts very well.....)

Christian standards of morality are not arbitrary, atheistic standards of morality apparently are. The former is meaningful, the latter is meaningless.

That explains why Calvanists abound!

You’re assuming the majority of people are rational, that’s funny.

So, he wanted it but he didn't want it. Got it.

God has two wills; I thought you’d know that since you claim to have been a Calvinist.

I have proven it by making conscious choices throughout this conversation.

How do you know you’re making a conscious choice?

For example: at first, my responses were prompt and now they are delayed. A varied approach, just as many things are varied.

That does not prove you freely chose your approach.

There absolutely is. Your position preposes that all things meaningless, not to mention extremely petty.

More misrepresentations I see, all things work together for the good of those who believe and to bring glory to God, that’s the opposite of meaningless.

Like I said, it's a difference of progression. I simply have a wider perspective than you, and because of that, I understand the contradictions involved.

You’d have to understand my position first, start there.

Chapter VI…II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation. (Palmer, p. 126)

Amen.

Not at all. It's not my fault that the doctrines contradict themselves. That's the nature of the bible.

Your misconception of the doctrines contradict themselves, but that’s a reflection upon your mind, not the actual doctrines.

When (or if) you ever graduate, then will talk. Right now it's like trying to discuss the planet with a flat earther.

You’d get schooled this badly by a flat-earther too? That’s funny, but believable.

Just stating one of their contradicting beliefs.

Prove it’s an actual contradiction, set up a syllogism, come on! Nail it!

That makes sense. "God's Word" is so powerful and "appealing" that most people don't truly get it and aren't compelled by it.

Everyone He wants to understand it does.

At its most base level, I think so. Our concept of morals and moral behavior may have developed from there.

Interesting.

As far as I am aware, standards of behavior have changed throughout the centuries, and continue to do so today. They seem to be based on opinion.

I do not see how this proves that morals are therefore relative, rather than there being an objectively true standard that people ought to follow but they simply rebel against and replace with false standards.

We are supposed to live by the same moral law, yes.

And lucky us you just happen to have the right instruction manual. Funny how Jews and Muslims claim that too.

Here is the problem though. It was written over 1,000 year period by 40 authors with books left out under the watch of this alleged "all powerful" god who "poofed" everything into existence. Hardly sounds efficient to take all that time and use mere mortals when you are "all powerful". That is just an efficiency issue I have with the God claim.

But morally it is worse. Where are the human's consent to be ruled? In civilized western society WE consent to the laws WE make, and when WE don't like them we can change them. And when we don't like our leaders we can vote them out of office. We can even have them held to account and even put in jail for corruption.

Now please tell me how the God character as depicted in the Bible is anything less than a dictator? Does he need our consent? No. Can we vote him out of his position without fear of reprisal? No.

"Just do it, because I say so" is what dictators say.

And even the 10 Commandments start out with the God character, not addressing human conditions, but demanding you pay attention to him and him only, just like a dictator. Seems hardly selfless. And when you go down the line of those "commandments" humans read like subjects of a king in a sexist feudal system.

Now if you want to cop out to "metaphor" I'd still have a problem with that. And in no particular order.

"Thou shalt have no other god/s before me", well in reality our secular laws say we don't have to kiss your god's ass.

"Obey your mother and father", but what if they sexually abuse you?

"Thou shalt not kill" sorry, but if you are coming at me with a knife or gun and like a criminal, I have every right to defend myself.

"Do not covet thy neighbors wife" Sexist statement putting women in property status as if they are not capable of "coviting they neighbor's husband". Oh and it also mentions other property men might own such as livestock, so women are on par with livestock.

"Keep the Sabbath Holy" I don't go to church and on Sundays I work and during the NFL season I go home and drink beer and watch football.

"Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vein", blasphemy is perfectly legal in most places in the west, and most PC attempts to silence blasphemy mostly get overturned because wise people realize those types of laws could prevent them from speaking ill of a god or religion they might not agree with.

So please tell me how such an ancient tribal book written by tribal gang clubs inspired by the idea that feudalism and success of the kings who were supported by religion back then, has any relevance to modern reality?