Bible contradictions?

[Nine]

Its no surprise there are so many christian politicians with the way you guys juggle bullshit around. You guys twist word's to the next level.

[Minimalist]

So now you are an expert on catholicism, too?

Or just reading your anti-papist horseshit from the other fundie nuts?

I wouldn't say expert but I've read Martin Luther's 95 theses. If you read them you will know about it too.

Do you EVER know what you are talking about? Luther's 95 feces that he threw on the door of the church in Wurttemberg was a protest against the pope selling indulgences ( today, the republibertarianeo-conazis call them "campaign contributions) and nothing to do with the fucking bible.

Some years later, Luther translated the bible into German and told all men to read it....as a really smooth way to boost book sales and make himself rich, I guess.

Anyway, the church did not want the bible translated into local languages and the Reformation was on. Certainly worth believers on both sides hacking and burning the fuck out of each other, if you ask me.

[Erinome]

These are great questions. We cannot completely understand all that God does;

Of course we can't. That would be too convenient, wouldn't it. Your god is so mysterious... it's almost like he doesn't even exist.

1. People make this objection on the usually-correct conclusion that no one deserves worship. That's true for humans, but God is no flawed person. He deserves glory not just because he made us but because he loves us unconditionally.

But does he love them unconditionally before and after he sends them to suffer eternally in a lake of fire?

We find it hard to worship imperfect people, but remember when you had your first girlfriend/boyfriend? You thought they were perfect and you worshiped them for it. Now imagine if you knew God was perfect and owed him your life.

First I would have to know he exists, and then I'd have to come to some understanding of what unimaginable plane of existence he would be considered perfect.

When someone loves you, you want to love them back.

Not necessarily.

Jesus showed his love when he washed his disciples feet, as a servant would do. Then he died for us.

Evidence? I'm assuming you have none, right? Just faith, right?

God made us with us in mind, not just himself. We get to live in eternal happiness if we choose to.

To me, eternal happiness would be to never have anything to do with your god. I think the very idea of him is repulsive, quite frankly. I don't even want to live eternally. Do we get to choose to stop existing when we die? Because I would prefer that above all else.

Why are we here at all?

I have my own, subjective purpose. Don't care why you're here.

God hasn't revealed the full reason yet. But if we understand this is the only way he could have created us (see 3.), and if we know the way out (John 3:16), we have enough to go on.

God hasn't revealed anything to anyone. People, on the other hand, have revealed that they have the willingness to believe the products of mediocre imaginations.

2. God made their lives, he can take them away. Jesus had to come into Israel in order to live and die for everyone's sins.

Why? If I was an omnipotent creator, I wouldn't have to send myself, as my son to some remote, illiterate portion of the globe for any reason. If I wanted to forgive people, I could just decide to do so, and it would be done. Hell, I can do that right now, and I'm but a mere mortal. This is why I don't buy that bullshit. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

The people who perished still get their choice of eternal life or eternal agony (far longer than 60 years), and they wouldn't have without Jesus.

For me, agony would be an eternity with the piece of shit god, and all his followers. Now what?

3. Create your own utopian world.

One without needlessly divisive, absurd religions like Christianity. Check.

What freedoms would you give it inhabitants? Would you let them lie around all day and pluck fruit off the grass? Say one wants a better part of the grass with more food. Would you let him murder another, or would you put a barrier between them? Would you let them lie or steal? Every time they lie and steal, resentment grows until they all hate each other and aren't happy at all.

If I'm god, and I love my creations, I would just make everyone's grass equally terrific.

The only way to prevent this is to cut parts in their brains that would allow them to think of such actions.

Or just make everyone's grass equally terrific.

Every time you make the world more perfect you have to take away a freedom.

And what freedom would be taken away by making everyone's grass equally terrific? That only makes sense if you don't think about it.

Sin was inevitable in Eden. Satan tempted Eve's free-thinking selfish side.

It's not selfish to think freely if you don't believe in an arrogant, amoral god. Then it's just called "pondering" or "asking questions". Either way, for that, Satan is my hero as far as fictional characters go.

If he didn't do it then, a greedy thought would have occurred to her later. Good and evil are intrinsic. You can't eliminate one without destroying all critical thought.

Thus proving your god to be highly illogical.

Sin is an psychological option, not a natural force. Its potential has existed as long as God has, which is forever.

I think mostly what your god considers to be sins are stupid, needless, and narcissistic.

4. For us to truly love him, we needed free will.

Stupid. My kids love me because I am good to them, and I would never allow them to suffer.

A robot programmed to obey does not love. God was willing to create us anyway, knowing he would have to sacrifice himself for his creation to live eternity with him.

A human who isn't programmed to obey doesn't love your god either. I know, because I am one. You paint god in an extremely illogical light. I thought he was omnipotent? That would mean he would be able to allow us to live with him for eternity anyway. This god of yours seems like he was made up in pieces and parts by different ancient people who didn't know each other, nor anything about natural reality.

[Tobie]

You keep claiming these incredulous things chip, yet never have any evidence to back them up. It's all well and good saying that "no it happened on this day" or what have you, but actually provide some EVIDENCE that what you're saying is true.

Anyway, the contradictions presented by everyone so far are in the trimmed down, edited bible. There's a whole cartload of stuff that was cut out early on ( basically anything portaying jesus as being even slightly human, and anything in favour of women), like the gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalen. The bible as is can't even get the nativity story right, it's told 4 different ways in 4 different gospels.

[Phil]

God dwells outside time and doesnt have a begining or an end. Neither does his qualities and characteristics. The reason we can't say the same about the universe is because time is a fixed part of the universe and as far as your cosmology goes, it always was. If you claim it wasn't then you will need an explanation for the origin of time.

Chiapet you ignorant retard, when are you ever going to learn about science before you spout off with unscientific idiot shit? If something is outside of time, it is outside of our universe and therefore can't have any effect whatsoever in our universe. BTW, your stupid book of fables claims god is everywhere which means god is not atemporal since he is in time. Matter of fact it means god is in this very room. It even means he is in this very box sitting on the table next to my computer. Guess what? He wasn't there.

[Minimalist]

The bible as is can't even get the nativity story right, it's told 4 different ways in 4 different gospels.

Two of them don't tell the story at all.

[Undeceived]

You keep claiming these incredulous things chip, yet never have any evidence to back them up. It's all well and good saying that "no it happened on this day" or what have you, but actually provide some EVIDENCE that what you're saying is true.

Neither does anyone have evidence for the contradiction view. Both sides have their respective backers' explanations. We're both using the same Bible. You interpret it one way. Christians, who know the Bible and its cultural period front to back, interpret it another. Rather than digging for a handful of petty inconsistencies to say "Aha! This proves it was made up," take a look from the other angle. Think hypothetically to yourself, "If God exists, can this make sense?" You'll find that it can.

Anyway, the contradictions presented by everyone so far are in the trimmed down, edited bible. There's a whole cartload of stuff that was cut out early on ( basically anything portaying Jesus as being even slightly human, and anything in favour of women), like the gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalen.

It's a good thing some writings were cut out. Either they were written by uninspired non-witnesses, they could not have been proven to be written by their namesakes, or they were written later than all the other books. The Book of Mary has been proved not to be authentic and written between the 3rd and 5th centuries. The Gospel of Thomas is from the 2nd to 3rd centuries. It falsely attributes some of Paul's sayings to Jesus and has quotations inconsistent with all the other Gospels.
GoT 114:
[Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."]

As you can see, this is anti-women and doesn't fit with Peter, whose wife was a believer, or Jesus, who openly talked with women even when it was improper culturally. The NT canon was constructed of the books early churches were already using. Imagine how warped the Bible would be today if it accepted every stray book out there.

The bible as is can't even get the nativity story right, it's told 4 different ways in 4 different gospels.

The nativity story is only in Matthew and Luke, and I don't see how they might contradict. Different parts are told, but they fit and add on one another. If the exact same events were told the exact same way you'd say they were copied. Luckily, that's not the case.

[Phil]

See, this is why arguing the fable known as the bible is pointless. Not only does it hold no authority nor does it contain anything relevant to life, it is senseless to argue because like assholes, everyone has their own opinion of it.

[DeistPaladin]

You don't need the word again or prefix re to infer what it already says. He made them all and he did it again in front of Adam. And genesis chapter 2 is after one. Everything in chapter 2 is going into detail about day 6.

Actually, you do need a prefix or some other wording. "Every" means "every" unless otherwise noted.

Still waiting for how you explain the Job reference to stars being around before the world was created.

[The Grand Nudger]

Anyone care to point out the inconsistencies or contradictions in Dracula? The Tortoise and the Hare? Battlefield Earth? The Cattle Raid of Cooley? Inconsistency or contradiction is a sign of bad editing, no more, no less.