Conflicting statements in the bible

[Golbez]

rofl, OP. Deleted. My bad.

[smax]

And what an unexemplary example of fatherhood he displayed by killing his own son.

Nice point. Here we have our local Calvanist spewing his divine election crap--something I'm unfortunately very familiar with--and he cannot even see how ridiculous and illogical it is for God to sacrifice his "only son" for meaningless objects of his wrath.

Sadly, I have to concede that this point of view is the most consistent with scripture.

As a former Christian, Calvanism (or Reformed Theology) was my final stage of progression before graduating to non-theistic views.

I wish more Christians would truly study what scriptures say and make a similar progression. Once you truly see the sadistic and malevolent character that the bible paints god as having, you can't help but see Yahweh for what he truly is: an invention of evil, racist, self-serving men.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Watch Man of Steel! The biblical parallel is so obvious! The only thing is, Superman is a way more convincing offspring of the Gods. When an evil force demanded that Superman be given to them, he went along with it. BUT!, He didn't get his bitch ass nailed to a cross...HE SMITED THOSE EVIL BASTARDS with his awesome powers. Jesus definitely takes the backseat among fictional only sons sent from the heavens to save humanity. Plus...PLASMA VISION!!!

[Foxaèr]

Watch Man of Steel! The biblical parallel is so obvious!

I love when movies have parallels to what I find interesting. My only concern is that the actor chosen for the role of Superman is not precisely the best piece of eye candy. I really was hoping Tom Welling would get the part.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Ha ha ha, well I can honestly say that had no bearing whatsoever on my opinion of the film, nor am I familiar with the name of the gentleman you mentioned. At any rate, there was even a point in the movie when they had a close up of Clark Kent's face wnen he was in a church, and there was a stained glass image of Jesus right next to it. I kept leaning in to my girlfriend to point of all the obvious correlations the director was making. Good flick. EPIC FIGHT SCENES!

---

I just looked up Tom Welling...that IS the guy who played him. Oh, you were concerned BEFORE the movie came out...now I think I'm up to speed.

[shoestring]

I found this very interesting graphic online.

The red arcs connect conflicting statements within the bible.

Too small to really get a good look at but looks interesting.

Any thoughts?

Possibly the biggest contradiction in the Bible was "In the Beginning..." because something must have been going on beforehand that God got bored enough with to decide to create something else.hock:

[Tonus]

So if a society determines its goal (final solution) to be a society devoid of Jews then it is moral progress to exterminate all Jews? Yikes.

If it's a society that is driven by such illogical urges (race/religion-based hatred) then its morals will reflect that. Replace "Jews" with "Canaanites" or "Hittites" or "Amorites" and moral progress means exterminating all Canannites, Hittites, or Amorites. Hopefully, humanity will work harder to overcome the desire to segregate ourselves and each other and create a society where we can mark progress in ways that don't include harming one another.

[littleendian]

Possibly the biggest contradiction in the Bible was "In the Beginning..." because something must have been going on beforehand that God got bored enough with to decide to create something else.hock:

He was getting tired of sitting in his livingroom whacking off to God-pr0n, so He in his might created this little arena we call earth and he's now intently watching to see how his little science experiment will turn out.

[Statler Waldorf]

I have read the bible.

Good! Then you should know that it never teaches that unregenerate people are God’s children.

Yet you remain wrong. Man created God.

Nope, God created man.

For an all powerful God, why did He have to put on the Broadway show? Surely, an all powerful being can eradicate sin with a snap of his fingers. Why sacrifice his son?

Because He’s also an all-just God, so He must poor out His wrath upon sin.

Nice point. Here we have our local Calvanist spewing his divine election crap--something I'm unfortunately very familiar with--and he cannot even see how ridiculous and illogical it is for God to sacrifice his "only son" for meaningless objects of his wrath.

He didn’t sacrifice His son for meaningless objects of wrath; He sacrificed His son for His adopted children in order that He may be glorified through their redemption. I honestly believe you spent your time in church sleeping.

As a former Christian, Calvanism (or Reformed Theology) was my final stage of progression before graduating to non-theistic views.

Then why can’t you accurately state what Calvinist’s believe?

If it's a society that is driven by such illogical urges (race/religion-based hatred) then its morals will reflect that. Replace "Jews" with "Canaanites" or "Hittites" or "Amorites" and moral progress means exterminating all Canannites, Hittites, or Amorites. Hopefully, humanity will work harder to overcome the desire to segregate ourselves and each other and create a society where we can mark progress in ways that don't include harming one another.

I am not following you at all on this one. You admit that given your definition of morality genocide would be moral progress, but then you make an appeal for societies not to follow that pattern. If it really was moral progress then why should societies not follow that pattern? That does not seem to make any sense; shouldn’t all societies desire to progress morally?

[smax]

He didn’t sacrifice His son for meaningless objects of wrath; He sacrificed His son for His adopted children in order that He may be glorified through their redemption. I honestly believe you spent your time in church sleeping.

Not at all. You are just stuck at a point that I happened to progress beyond. As a result, I now understand the conflct inherent in my previous views.

At this point, you willingly admit that you are "intellectually" incapable of recognizing any flaws in your religious views.

You see, in the real world, divine election makes no sense because, in the real world, free will exists.

---

Then why can’t you accurately state what Calvinist’s believe?

I don't recall trying.