Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[Undeceived]

I want to first clarify that the "believer" and "nonbeliever" logics are in their perfect extremes. Every person is made in God's image and is taught how to love by family, therefore they are not altogether self-obsessed. A "believer" strives to be perfectly loving and therefore righteous, but never gets there. We are all equally sinners somewhere in the middle.

You can't simply assert that non-believers are self-obsessed assholes.

According to evolutionary theory (oft-referenced by nonbelievers), self-obsession is not a bad thing. In fact, it makes perfect sense. One's goal is to survive with any means possible; the body is geared that way. But by your tone it seems you are suggesting self-obsession is to be looked down upon. Why? By what standard? If there is no standard and your being nice is just so people like you, well, that is self-driven too.

you have no proof for this.

This is not a persuasive essay. This is an examination of how, assuming Biblical Christianity, belief co-exists with logic.

Perhaps you mean to say that the atheist is of the opinion that certain premises used in such a logical argument carry less weight to her than they do to the Christian?

Yes, each side has valid arguments. It is the truth of the premises which the two are divided on. If I put on "naturalism" goggles, I see the world as an arrangement of chemicals. Using this viewpoint, I backtrack to the origin of life--chance and the unknown. With the origin in mind, I confidently conclude life is purposeless. The only logical goal I can have is to find pleasures so life is more bearable. Since we are simply chemicals, I need not abide by a moral code. The only possible reason I have to gratify my fellow chemicals is if there is something in it for me--after all, they are no more than rocks on a hillside.
If I put on "spiritual" goggles, I see a physical world designed by an unseen, personal God. He loved us enough to create us in his image, each unique. His love makes me want to love, and I find more satisfaction in loving (others and God) when I have a God to share it with. But in fact, I don't love for satisfaction or pleasure. If I did, that would put me on the earthly, selfish side. I love because God loved us enough to sacrifice his son/himself, the ultimate selfless act. And it just seems logical. God made us and loved us, therefore the purpose of life is to love. Valid argument, assumed premise. Except it's not assumed out of thin air. The Holy Spirit enters my "natural" realm and lets me know of his "spiritual" realm. This is done in the heart/mind/soul. And since he comes in natural form or thought, he can easily be dismissed as nature. Believers accept. Nonbelievers dismiss. If you feel left out for having apparently dismissed the opportunity, there is still time. You have not dismissed until you are dead. You are in the center world, the walkway over the fence. That is not a bad place to be until the walkway collapses and you have to pick a side.

I guess my question is this: In what way does the Holy Spirit teach us? I mean, can we know for certain when he speaks and when we only imagine he spoke, but were mistaken?

1 John 4:2 "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." Everything that acknowledges Christ's selfless act and encourages our selfless response is good and true. Jesus said, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Love is the root of all good. Ask, “What would a loving God want me to think when I read this verse?” God wants your heart, not your actions. And the actions will follow. Continue to read the Bible with “Christology” in mind—i.e. ask what every verse has to do with Jesus. You will receive the wisdom you need, though maybe not the wisdom you want.

Are you saying, then that the difference between a believer and a non-believer is that the former chooses to trust scripture, but the latter chooses not to trust scripture? Or is there something more to it than that?

Trusting scripture is the result. First you must choose to serve the Maker of the Universe or serve yourself. The Holy Spirit (I think) meets you simultaneously. The moment you have knowledge of the truth, you choose. Paul in Romans 10 asks, "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" suggesting our part in the process, through which the Holy Spirit works. Then the simple response, "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
You might ask, "If everyone knows the truth, why do they all not accept God and reap the rewards in heaven?" The answer is that you cannot fully accept God with a selfish 'reward' mindset. Believers are the ones who would follow Christ even if there were no heaven.

[Cato]

He will make up his mind when he is ready, what's your big rush, actually I know but will keep it to myself, preaching is not allowed.

GC, there's actually a juicy bit of scripture where Jesus doesn't even know when the 'end of days' will come. Are you now telling us that you know what your saviour didn't?

Forum rules prohibit preaching; however, they do not discourage honest prognostication....do tell.

[Godscreated]

He will make up his mind when he is ready, what's your big rush, actually I know but will keep it to myself, preaching is not allowed.

GC, there's actually a juicy bit of scripture where Jesus doesn't even know when the 'end of days' will come. Are you now telling us that you know what your saviour didn't?

Forum rules prohibit preaching; however, they do not discourage honest prognostication....do tell.

Preaching would be the only appropriate answer. Do tell what does your statement have to do with Spockrates making a decision.

[The Grand Nudger]

Easily won salvation you have there, still not interested.

-You seem to believe that evolutionary theory is a replacement for whatever morality you feel that christianity has given you. It is not, has never been, and is not meant to be. Your desire for salvation is also "self-driven".

-Belief coexists with logic just fine, regardless of whether or not compromises must be made.

-Life is a "collection of chemicals", regardless of what goggles you put on. A conclusion that life is purposeless on these grounds would have more to do with ones own inner demons than purpose or this life. We are chemicals, and we abide (I use that loosely) by a moral code. It's true though, you don't have to, but there will be consequences (sometimes). I think your fellow chemical are a bit more than rocks on the hillside, but again, an appraisal of the situation as such has to do with ones own perception of life and those around them. What reasons do you have for doing anything that aren't wholly your own GC, enlighten me?

Ah, spiritual goggles now...well, you need to get them cleaned. You're still a collection of chemicals, you were not designed by your unseen personal god. "Unique, just like everybody else"... Ah...here it is...

"and I find more satisfaction" ...yup....... So what was all that bullshit above about self obsession and self driven things about?

But hey, way to contradict yourself in the following sentence, and then follow it up directly with "it only seems logical". Well, seems =/= is. I see that you have given a purpose to life here, even though it is apparently purposeless. Love, as good as any purpose I imagine. Why did you feel the need to use god as a proxy for this? Doesn't the purpose to love stand on your own authority insomuch as it can be applied or adhered to in your life? Why do you seem to feel that external verification is required for your appraisal of life's purpose to be accurate? Do you really give a shit if someone disagrees....I know I don't. It's an argument full of assumptions, and not valid, on top of an assumed premise, and that "seems logical" to you? We have different standards of logic. You have a wonderfully elaborate way of describing the act of "talking and listening to one's self". Kudos on invoking the spectre of death here btw.....it wouldn't be a proper GC post without that.

-You were asked how one might be able to determine if the holy spirit was talking to them and you responded with "ask yourself".....you really don't see the issues with this? Well, I asked, and the holy spirit said you're full of it. "You'll get the wisdom you need-except when you don't".

-You know I'd probably give christianity a try if it weren't for the whole "reward bit" (I actually wouldn't have to change a single thing in my life..so long as I didn't have to believe in a god). That's a deal breaker for me. The reward and the manner in which the narrative would have us believe it is secured are horrible to me.

(I know I know, not addressed at me, but I get tired of reading your posts and keeping my mouth shut...)

[liam]

I want to first clarify that the "believer" and "nonbeliever" logics are in their perfect extremes. Every person is made in God's image and is taught how to love by family, therefore they are not altogether self-obsessed A "believer" strives to be perfectly loving and therefore righteous, but never gets there.

No proof for this, wild speculation and an unfounded premise. Furthermore, misrepresenting the behaviour of believers as always loving to bolster a weak argument.

If there is no standard and your being nice is just so people like you, well, that is self-driven too.

Nope, I'm nice because it's a good thing to do and so is its own justification. Self-obsession is bad because it leads to immorality, greed and exploitation, that is the standard by which I judge self-obsession

This is not a persuasive essay. This is an examination of how, assuming Biblical Christianity belief co-exists with logic.

There's your problem right there, you're relying on christianity to justify belief in christianity, logical fallacy.

-Circular logic
-Ignored most of my rebuttal
-Assuming God exists
-Ridiculous logical leaps

1/10, just nope.

[Minimalist]

Preaching would be the only appropriate answer.

Preaching is never an appropriate answer. Preaching is what clowns like you do when reality escapes them...as it usually does.

[Anomalocaris]

Preaching is the only choice available to the assertively stupid.

[spockrates]

Sorry everyone for not replying, yesterday. Busy day.

---

Are you saying, then that the difference between a believer and a non-believer is that the former chooses to trust scripture, but the latter chooses not to trust scripture? Or is there something more to it than that?

Spockrates,
Quit fucking around and take a position. Will you proclaim that Jesus was the son of God and died for your sins?

I still do, Cato, but perhaps I should not? Please tell me: Do you think the contradictions shown so far are significant enough to change my mind? Or are you thinking the ambiguities I've pointed out are good reason to stop trusting all that the Bible says?

---

For simplicity, let's narrow it down to two: believing in Christ and not believing in Christ. Each uses a different starting point. A nonbeliever uses "me" logic--self-interestedness. A believer uses selflessness logic.

A non-believer uses reason.

A believer uses bullshit.

You, sir, are a bullshitter.

Minimalist:

From my point of view, dishing such out implies foreknowledge that what one says is a lie. Are you saying Undeceived knows what he is saying is untrue, or do you have a different understanding of the expletive you use?

---

This "me" thinking and "selfless" thinking is just a way to hide the truth: "me" thinking is really independent thinking, and "selfless" thinking is simply intellectual bankruptcy.
If you get your logical code from a bunch of fairy tales it is no wonder you fail to think for yourself.
"Convinced of Christ by reason. 2 Timothy 4:3."
Says enough about the capacity to think for one's self, doesn't it?
Claims to respect logic and reason, then sites a Bible verse?

Perhaps you are correct, Skepsis. Reasoned self interest does seem wise. One might even point out to the Christian that the hope of living satisfied forever after death is in her self interest, so she must be selfish!

But doesn't selflessness also have it's place? Consider a fire fighter, or police officer, or soldier who sacrifices her life to save the lives of others. Don't most people praise such a selfless act and call the sacrificed one a hero? Or are you of the opinion that only a fool would die so that someone else might live?

[spockrates]

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I ask because I'm going through a time of uncertainty in my Christian walk and appreciate the help.




I do not think he was saying that all non-Christians are egotistical and I'm pretty sure he understands that Christians are not immune to selfishness, if that were true I would be in trouble.

Yes and no, God desires that we follow in His will without question and we would, if our faith was strong enough. Being fallen people God knows we are not capable of this perfect faith and thus does reason with us so we can understand His will. He does not compromise with us, His will is perfect and to compromise would mean to give us standards that are less than who God is. Read verses 1-20, do you ask for God's revelation of His word before you read and are you looking for answers you want or the ones that reveal God's truth.

Yes, I do seek the truth, and I suppose that Socrates was right in saying that in seeking the truth, we have nothing to lose but our ignorance!



I'd say that the context of the passage is that seeking forgiveness from God is not enough. Reason tells us that we must sincerely repent to become (or perhaps remain) forgiven.

18 “Come now, let us reason together,”
    says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
    they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
    they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
    you will eat the best from the land;
20 but if you resist and rebel,
    you will be devoured by the sword.”
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

(Isaiah 1)

This idea appears to agree with the teaching of Paul,


God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.

(Acts 5:31)

and Jesus,


"...and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

(Like 24:47)

[spockrates]

This is where I think many Christians stumble, "how do we know when the Holy Spirit is teaching us."
First I believe Christians are impatient, wanting questions answered in their time and not when God knows best. Patients is truly a virtue and Christians need to understand this and they need to know God will answer through the Holy Spirit when the time is right and I know this from personal experience.
The Holy Spirit will teach us through God's word more than any other way, He will use others to teach and He will use life experiences, but however He teaches it must line up with God's word. When God answers prayer you will know it, just be patient, but always be looking because it could come quickly. When you believe you have heard from the Holy Spirit check what you believe you have heard with the scriptures and if it does not line up with God's word then you have only heard from yourself. Remember you have to ask for the things of God, ask for and through His will, if you do not you will not hear from Him, God does not promise to answer all prayer, this is stated throughout scripture.
You mentioned that you could see where Catholic and Protestant interpretation of scriptures could both be valid and I think I know what your speaking of, but remember this, if the two are in direct conflict with each other someone is wrong, truth can not be on both sides of the same fence.

Yes, but when it is God's word that is unclear about a topic so important as one's eternal state of existence, what am I to do? It seems my prayer for wisdom has been answered by opening my eyes to the scriptural ambiguities. Rather than making the intent more clear, it has become cloudy--not in that the meaning is vague, but in that it seems impossible to determine which meaning is the truth! Speaking to those on both sides of the fence separating Protestants and Catholics has only deepened my conviction that either side might be deceived. So how do I choose? And if you don't mind my asking, what side did you choose?

That's exactly what's being said, those verses that Undeceived quoted are wisdom that every Christian should carry in their hearts, they are extremely valuable, more precious than gold.