Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ion · 10-14-2002, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:
Well I am not sure and I am not interesting in solving your contradiction.
...

It's Bible's contradiction not mine.

Personally I don't hold the Bible as being true, so its contradictions are not mine, as in I don't make these contradictions.

Ion · 10-14-2002, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:


Of course the first quote is removed from a specific context, as usual.
...
Radorth

The context doesn't appear in "...is...".

By today's standards, a cop giving a ticket to someone who "...is..." speeding, cannot be accused as "...mistranslating...", being too "...literalist..." about speed, and not considering the "...context...".
Same standard as the cop giving today a ticket, is applied to the Bible:
"...is..." 'God' of war or of peace?

There it is, one Biblical contradiction.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

Baidarka · 10-14-2002, 09:04 AM

Leonarde
Yes of course the Law is a reference to Torah and the Mosaic Laws. “The Prophets” is a reference to the Prophets in the Torah and their authority over the people. So far we agree but then you give an example showing that sometimes some laws can be ignored. You seem to posit that this is an innovation of Jesus’ and that this is implied within this text. This is not so, the sick need not Fast on Fast days. Jews may defend themselves if attacked on the Sabbath and of course the David incident that Jesus cites is from Torah and is a typical rabbinic argument. The only Laws to which there are no exceptions are the laws against adultery and the laws prohibiting murder. You still have not demonstrated that Matthew 5.17 is anything but an affirmation of Torah Law or that this verse and can be harmonized with the suppersessionist accretions in the NT.
I wish the reaffirm my contention that Matthew 5.17 is a clear example of an NT contradiction and a demonstration that the NT is a layered Document with many authors writing at different times from different points of view. The NT can not be harmonized with itself without practicing extreme violence to the laws of reason.
Baidarka

Radorth · 10-14-2002, 09:44 AM

Since Ion failed to respond to meaningful questions, we must conclude that a contradiction is REALLY a contradiction whenever Ion says so.

No comment on why God might kill to prevent slavery and injustice? Guess not. That would be admitting the only contradiction is usually in the skeptic's own thinking, and that s/he sees pretty much in black and white.

I hope we hear no more complaining about why a good God doesn't do something to prevent injustice.

Rad

"He takes the wise in their own craftiness."

Baidarka · 10-14-2002, 10:36 AM

“One would think sceptics would note when God does something to prevent slavery and injustice, but they never do for some reason. They only seem to note when he encourages it.” Radorth
This thread is about Biblical contradictions. Your point that we should in all fairness acknowledge not only the evil Biblical sentiments but the good sentiments as well only helps to strengthen the point that there are indeed Biblical contradictions.
You seem to be asking us to determine “God’s mind” by averaging the good and evil statements together to arrive at a predominately good conclusion. While this may be an interesting exercise it has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible contradicts itself.

leonarde · 10-14-2002, 12:01 PM

Posted by Baidarka:

Quote:

You still have not demonstrated that Matthew 5.17 is anything but an affirmation of Torah Law or that this verse and can be harmonized with the suppersessionist accretions in the NT.

1)I am NOT a supersessionist: "Believe in God, believe also in me!" indicates that people can
and do believe in the former without the latter.

2)I did not try to demonstrate that the one
verse means anything more than the affirmation
that you mention. But if you have an entire religion/theology built on just one verse, then
you are going to have the most simplistic religion
going/theology imaginable.

3)What I did try to demonstrate, by citing
may other instances in the NT, was that Jesus
claimed an authority higher than that of Moses
(the 'Law giver' of the OT). In several instances
he overruled or ignored the 'law' or sanctioned
same.

4)I also mentioned that the 'greatest' commandment
and the overall tenor of Jesus' statements on many occasions indicates that he was more
concerned with the inner disposition of the
person, the humility before God that the individual showed (than mechanical observance of a set of rules).

5)I also showed that in a vision/dream, it was
revealed (quite early in Church history)to Peter that there was no such thing as an "unclean" animal. This was thought by Peter to mean that keeping kosher (at least for Gentile Christians) was optional.

We disagree, Baidarka. Surprise!

Cheers!

Baidarka · 10-14-2002, 01:26 PM

Leonarde
1)I am NOT a supersessionist: "Believe in God, believe also in me!" indicates that people can
and do believe in the former without the latter.
B
I am not presumptuous enough to call you a supersessionist. I was not referring to you I was referring to what I would call “the suppersessionist accretions in the NT”.
L
2)I did not try to demonstrate that the one
verse means anything more than the affirmation
that you mention. But if you have an entire religion/theology built on just one verse, then
you are going to have the most simplistic religion
going/theology imaginable.
B
I am not trying to build a theology. I am only trying to demonstrate there is a contradiction here.
L
3)What I did try to demonstrate, by citing
may other instances in the NT, was that Jesus
claimed an authority higher than that of Moses
(the 'Law giver' of the OT). In several instances
he overruled or ignored the 'law' or sanctioned
same.
B
You were trying to eliminate the contradiction by using contrary statements to demonstrate that the contradiction could not be, but the more contrary statements you found the more examples of contradictions we now have to add to our list.
L
4)I also mentioned that the 'greatest' commandment
and the overall tenor of Jesus' statements on many occasions indicates that he was more
concerned with the inner disposition of the
person, the humility before God that the individual showed (than mechanical observance of a set of rules).
B
You are now demonstrating that Jesus and the Great Pharisee teacher Hillel were in agreement. A Greek once asked Hillel to explain Torah while he stood on one foot. "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it."
L
5)I also showed that in a vision/dream, it was
revealed (quite early in Church history)to Peter that there was no such thing as an "unclean" animal. This was thought by Peter to mean that keeping kosher (at least for Gentile Christians) was optional.
B
As I said a suppersessionist accretion and a clear contradiction. Also notice that the NTs explanation of the dream is much different then yours (f course your explanation makes more sense). Also please note that the Noahide laws were already in effect for "God-fearers" so this would not have been an innovation were gentiles are concerned.
L
We disagree, Baidarka. Surprise!
B
I am not surprised but I must say that I find you ability to stubbornly embrace illogic to be disappointing.

leonarde · 10-14-2002, 01:35 PM

Partial post by Baidarka:

Quote:

You were trying to eliminate the contradiction by using contrary statements to demonstrate that the contradiction could not be, but the more contrary statements you found the more examples of contradictions we now have to add to our list.

As I indicated
in one or more previous posts, I think you have
absorbed the absolutism of the "Bible thumpers"
without the corresponding faith. If an apparently
'obvious' interpretation of statement X is contradicted by many, many other statements then
the 'obvious' interpretation was probably too hasty and too facile. That goes for non-religious
texts too.
You find me illogical. I think that reconciling
apparently conflictory passages in religious texts
is what theologians routinely do. I'm a layman,
not a theologian, but I still believe that we can
look for meanings behind the words. Indeed
we are so obligated.

Cheers!

Slex · 10-14-2002, 01:58 PM

The problem with the Bible is, IMHO, that if Christian apologets and inneranists in particular, use the same method of rationalization and how-it-could-have-beens and it-actually-doesnt-mean-what-it-means stuff when they examine the Holy Books of other religions, they will have to end up with the conclusion that these books are also inerrant. And if I am a teacher, who uses this kind of method to assess the essays of third-graders, writing on the theory of relativity, I will have to give all of them excellent marks, because using the above techniques and a little imagination, I will make all they have written to be as the work of Einstein himself.

Grumpy · 10-14-2002, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
1)Baidarka and Ion are the Biblical literalists here: they tend to take each phrase, sentence, exchange in a word for word, phrase for phrase, exhange for exchange manner, giving little notice of the context. Their literalism is the source of their perception that the NT is just a collection of contradictions.

Perhaps I should confess to being a literalist, by that definition. This is grounded in a belief that a God capable of communicating with humanity would do so in the least ambiguous way.

It's been said that if you scratch an atheist, you'll find a fundamentalist underneath; in this case, it's true. To avoid any confusion, I should have used the word "inerrantist," since that's the position which maintains there are no contradictions.

Quote:

posted by Radorth:
So lemme see if I can grasp the point. If there was a plane about to hit a building with 20,000 people in it, a Christian F-16 pilot should do what exactly?

Being a moral relativist, I would have no problem with a peace-loving pilot, Christian or otherwise, resorting to violence. In fact, I would say that the Christian should ignore Christ's "turn the other cheek" instruction (though possibly not applicable in the given scenario). The problem is, I don't see how God can be simultaneously peaceable and warlike, or either one depending on the weather.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-14-2002, 09:04 AM	#53
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Leonarde Yes of course the Law is a reference to Torah and the Mosaic Laws. “The Prophets” is a reference to the Prophets in the Torah and their authority over the people. So far we agree but then you give an example showing that sometimes some laws can be ignored. You seem to posit that this is an innovation of Jesus’ and that this is implied within this text. This is not so, the sick need not Fast on Fast days. Jews may defend themselves if attacked on the Sabbath and of course the David incident that Jesus cites is from Torah and is a typical rabbinic argument. The only Laws to which there are no exceptions are the laws against adultery and the laws prohibiting murder. You still have not demonstrated that Matthew 5.17 is anything but an affirmation of Torah Law or that this verse and can be harmonized with the suppersessionist accretions in the NT. I wish the reaffirm my contention that Matthew 5.17 is a clear example of an NT contradiction and a demonstration that the NT is a layered Document with many authors writing at different times from different points of view. The NT can not be harmonized with itself without practicing extreme violence to the laws of reason. Baidarka

10-14-2002, 09:44 AM	#54
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Since Ion failed to respond to meaningful questions, we must conclude that a contradiction is REALLY a contradiction whenever Ion says so. No comment on why God might kill to prevent slavery and injustice? Guess not. That would be admitting the only contradiction is usually in the skeptic's own thinking, and that s/he sees pretty much in black and white. I hope we hear no more complaining about why a good God doesn't do something to prevent injustice. Rad "He takes the wise in their own craftiness."

10-14-2002, 10:36 AM	#55
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	“One would think sceptics would note when God does something to prevent slavery and injustice, but they never do for some reason. They only seem to note when he encourages it.” Radorth This thread is about Biblical contradictions. Your point that we should in all fairness acknowledge not only the evil Biblical sentiments but the good sentiments as well only helps to strengthen the point that there are indeed Biblical contradictions. You seem to be asking us to determine “God’s mind” by averaging the good and evil statements together to arrive at a predominately good conclusion. While this may be an interesting exercise it has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible contradicts itself.

10-14-2002, 01:26 PM	#57
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Leonarde 1)I am NOT a supersessionist: "Believe in God, believe also in me!" indicates that people can and do believe in the former without the latter. B I am not presumptuous enough to call you a supersessionist. I was not referring to you I was referring to what I would call “the suppersessionist accretions in the NT”. L 2)I did not try to demonstrate that the one verse means anything more than the affirmation that you mention. But if you have an entire religion/theology built on just one verse, then you are going to have the most simplistic religion going/theology imaginable. B I am not trying to build a theology. I am only trying to demonstrate there is a contradiction here. L 3)What I did try to demonstrate, by citing may other instances in the NT, was that Jesus claimed an authority higher than that of Moses (the 'Law giver' of the OT). In several instances he overruled or ignored the 'law' or sanctioned same. B You were trying to eliminate the contradiction by using contrary statements to demonstrate that the contradiction could not be, but the more contrary statements you found the more examples of contradictions we now have to add to our list. L 4)I also mentioned that the 'greatest' commandment and the overall tenor of Jesus' statements on many occasions indicates that he was more concerned with the inner disposition of the person, the humility before God that the individual showed (than mechanical observance of a set of rules). B You are now demonstrating that Jesus and the Great Pharisee teacher Hillel were in agreement. A Greek once asked Hillel to explain Torah while he stood on one foot. "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it." L 5)I also showed that in a vision/dream, it was revealed (quite early in Church history)to Peter that there was no such thing as an "unclean" animal. This was thought by Peter to mean that keeping kosher (at least for Gentile Christians) was optional. B As I said a suppersessionist accretion and a clear contradiction. Also notice that the NTs explanation of the dream is much different then yours (f course your explanation makes more sense). Also please note that the Noahide laws were already in effect for "God-fearers" so this would not have been an innovation were gentiles are concerned. L We disagree, Baidarka. Surprise! B I am not surprised but I must say that I find you ability to stubbornly embrace illogic to be disappointing.

10-14-2002, 01:58 PM	#59
Slex Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bulgaria Posts: 68	The problem with the Bible is, IMHO, that if Christian apologets and inneranists in particular, use the same method of rationalization and how-it-could-have-beens and it-actually-doesnt-mean-what-it-means stuff when they examine the Holy Books of other religions, they will have to end up with the conclusion that these books are also inerrant. And if I am a teacher, who uses this kind of method to assess the essays of third-graders, writing on the theory of relativity, I will have to give all of them excellent marks, because using the above techniques and a little imagination, I will make all they have written to be as the work of Einstein himself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.