Hurray for San Francisco!

[Peter Thomas]

Okay - I'm trying to address 6 million topics here, so bare with me .

Firstly, the bible IS meant to be taken literally. That does NOT, however, mean that you can't use metaphors and similes. Jesus says continually things along the line of: "I'm using metaphors because humans are dumb and don't know what I'm talking about." Which is a fair statement. When a man comes up to you and starts lecturing in your face, you're BOUND to be a bit dazed.

Secondly, the bible DOES NOT contradict itself. I swear by my life, it doesn't. Aside the big things that are beyond human comprehension like 'What is God, and why is he everywhere?', of course (I'm not saying they contradict, I'm just saying I don't know all the answers). You're "killing" example won't be discussed here because it doesn't really exist.

Timosity, I agree whole heartedly that this shouldn't become a debate. I'm probably only exacerbating the problem with my post, but I kinda feel obliged to correct some false claims.

To Indiana, you need to do some research before you start making claims like non-working women. You're only saying what you think, rather than what you know. What about people like Dorcas? (Bad name, I know) Indeed, Galations (a book in the bible for the non-bible-readers) claims: "there is neither male nor female". Of course, it has a context within the chapter, but it's too long to type up, so I won't. And this is a metaphor (meaning that yes, you still can take the bible literally) meaning that men and women SHOULD be allowed to do most jobs together. As for this rape, story, excuse me??!!! Post it, PLEASE!!! I would LOVE to read this story... maybe it's because you're typing in layman's talk that I don't know... I tend to talk a lot more 'biblical' about stories. Post it and let me explain it, my friend

Next, I say there WERE a dozen extra new testament books that could've been chosen. But they weren't. Because what's the point of printing 100 books when you can condense it into 27? It makes sense really... There's nothing DRAMATICALLY excluded in the left-out chapters... just random babble. As for translation errors, correct - there are HEAPS, and christian leaders have been debating them for YEARS, however it is only the finely attuned eye that picks them up. Like the difference between 'lord' and 'Lord' means the same no matter what, however there is a significance that can be seen.

The bible may be 2,000 years old, so I can see why you might not believe it, but theories like the big bang don't have time to accumulate age, because they are changing constantly. I'd much prefer to stick my faith in something that has stood the test of time... it's scary to see how relevant some of this bible stuff is today.

[shbaz]

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=2+kings+2&version=NIV

God kills 22 children with she-bears (depending on the translation) In this link, look at 2 kings 2-23

It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.

- Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

[Las Naranjas]

The dead sea scrolls are older Farl. Most of these other gospels we only know about because of reference to them in other sources.

Whilst there is plenty of evidence to suggest a vast degree of manipulation in Paul's camp, it's still educated conjecture, valuable, but I'm not willing to make statements of fact, at least where faith is involved.

But one interesting contradiction that I'd like to ask Peter about is where one of the gospels places John the baptist in prison at the time Jesus was baptised.

Now, if we suppose that Paul's posse was diminishing the role of those close to Christ, this could be a prime example of this.

Moreover, this is a contradiction that isn't about something that is said to have come from the mouth of Christ or God, so it's not that tricky theologically. But it does seem to imply that the gospels, written as they are by men, and not God, can be flawed as well, since humaity is flawed.

In which case, we may be seperated from God by taking as his truth something that has come to us via flawed humanity.

[Nacho]

I agree with Las and Miez... We´re not saying that the four books of the new testament are a compilation of all the information of the apocriphs gospels... we´re saying that they´re re-written to make them more suitable and appealing, that´s something completely different!

So... ask me this.

a)Crossification is a Roman punishment...
b)Jewish punishement was lapidation.
c)Romans were very respectful with collaboratiive religions, and the Jewish church was in that time, SO:

Why was Jesus crossified? If he was the enemy of the Jewish church, and he was no great enemy of the romans (Let´s remember that the Gospels say that Jesus told the Jews to obbey the payment of taxes to the Romans, and Pilatos was told to see no guilty in him) he should have been dilapidated...

Why crossified? because he was a revolutionary, enemy of the collaborationist Jewish church and the roman empire... the romans killed him.

But Paul changed it all, he changed the propaganda against the Romans and added supernatural stuff, therefore, Paul lied, maybe in A LOT of aspects, who knows? maybe in all...

So... How can you still believe in the Bible as a history book???

[TheYak]

It's gotten a bit off-topic has it?  I see the gay marriage situation a bit more pragmatically.  We've got government and religion.  Government dictates how people in a certain location live.  It determines what they can and cannot do.  It gives certain privileges and enforces certain restrictions.  

What is marriage? More or less, the joining of two citizens financially and intimately.  The two are meant to be intimate with each other, live in the same place and share their finances, problems and the bits and pieces of experience that we call life.  This doesn't sound like an issue that needs to be handled by a religious institution or even our more "morally-upstanding" citizens.  A marriage can be performed by any justice of the peace (basically a title of judge, only not restricted to a particular precinct).  If churches want to deny gays a religious ceremony then I suppose they've got every right.  The KKK is more than welcome to turn down black people who wish to join its organization.

Why are people so emotional about this? (particularly on the conservative side) It's not like the US gives a damn about marriage. 68% will end in divorce.  Of the remaining 32%, 2/3 will have been married at least once previously.  In the military, the divorce rate is +10%.  More and more couples are signing pre-nup agreements, ensuring that their possessions remain theirs in case the marriage doesn't work out.  The youth of the US (on average) is more violent, more ignorant, less patient, and is much more likely to have come from a broken home.  What is it that "straight" people are doing so well? What makes us think gays couldn't do an adequate job themselves?  I'm kind of with Sylpher on this..  the adoption issue I would definately have to think about.  However, a male-female couple has to go through numerous interviews and evaluations in order to adopt a child.  If the gay couple does the same things and passes the tests, why assume they'll do a worse job of it?

If homosexuality is a choice, then this is more of a moral issue than anything.  If it's genetic (or even a fraction of homosexuals are) then any denial of equal rights constitues bigotry on our part.  The adoption issue aside, why not deny them driver's licenses as well?

[Las Naranjas]

Can I stress that I'm not declaring that Paul changed things, but there is a strong suggestion that it happened.

I'm approaching this as a historian, not a theologist, or a christian or an atheist.

[Peter Thomas]

OKay, again dealing with multiple posts at once:

Las, read John Chapter 3: After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptised. And John also was baptising in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptised. For John was not yet cast into prison

That seems....erm... pretty clear to me...

Farlander: This is why Jesus was crucified: Jesus challenged the Jews to find legitimate fault with him, but they failed (Jn. 8: 46). Paul wrote thus, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5: 21). The crucifixion displays as no other event in history the depth of prejudice, moral and political corruption, and spiritual abandonment to which man is capable of sinking. It went to show that tradition didn't matter to the people. It was symbolism.

Shabz: This is a kind of difficult one, and (in case you were wondering) there were actually 42 (as opposed to 22) people killed. And they weren't children. The term 'small/youth' refers to their character, not their age.  This doesn't make the issue any different however. The answer is this: The people say "Go on up you baldhead" to Elisha, however it is not really an insult to him. It's to God. Elisha used to live under the mediterranean sun, in which it was necessary to shave your head to keep cool. This incident with the taunts happens 50 years later, in a different place where the sun is not as hot, and he is NOT bald. So the taunt is actually directed at his heritage, which was dedicated to the living of God. Therefore, God sends the bears to kill because these people were insulting God himself. There is another law of God that says you have to worship him and HIM ONLY. I'm not saying this is 100% justification for murder with regards to our perception of it, however God DOES say continually throughout the Bible that he will show his wrath on people who taunt his name. There are finer points for me to argue, if you care, but this is the general reason why.

To Yakspit: I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic. AT ALL. There has been so much debate over it, and so little resulting facts, that it suggests gay people are just looking for an excuse. But at the same time I do not believe that it's a conscious decision either. If you read my earlier post, where I explained MY struggles with homosexuality, you'll see what I mean. On the adoption issue, I'd have to think about it as well. Because I do not believe in a homosexual life-style, I cannot support it, but I DO believe that a lot of gay couples could raise a child better than 20% of the world's STRAIGHT population...

[DGMacphee]

That does NOT, however, mean that you can't use metaphors and similes. Jesus says continually things along the line of: "I'm using metaphors because humans are dumb and don't know what I'm talking about."

How dare Jesus say that about me!

He's never going to play on my beach volleyball team again.

Besides, if humans are as dumb as Jesus thought, then why not speak clearly without faffing around with metaphors.

Secondly, the bible DOES NOT contradict itself. I swear by my life, it doesn't. Aside the big things that are beyond human comprehension like 'What is God, and why is he everywhere?', of course (I'm not saying they contradict, I'm just saying I don't know all the answers). You're "killing" example won't be discussed here because it doesn't really exist.

This was written by Walter Brueggemann, Christian Century (Jan. 3-10 2001, p.16):

'In Deuteronomy 24:1, moreover, Moses teaches that marriages broken in infidelity cannot be restored, even if both parties want to get back together. But in Jeremiah 3, in a shocking reversal given in a pathos-filled poem, God's own voice indicates a readiness to violate that Torah teaching for the sake of restored marriage to Israel. The old teaching is seen to be problematic even for God. The latter text shows God prepared to move beyond the old prohibition of Torah in order that the inherent evangelical claims of God's graciousness may be fully available even to a recalcitrant Israel.'

This is an example of a contradiction in the bible.

One book is saying, "You can't accept your wife back after divorce.'

The other is saying, "Yes, you can."

[Peter Thomas]

Not quite, DG. You are indeed correct that Deut. denounces divorce, quite clearly too. But Jeremiah does not ACCEPT it.

God says: "Return, faithless Israel... I will frown on you no longer, for I am merciful... I will not be angry forever, only acknowledge your guilt..."

This has NOTHING to do with God ACCEPTING or AGREEING to divorce/remarriage. Just showing that he won't be angry FOREVER because of it. The inferences made about 'coming back and I will accept you', is referring to God's merciful nature of loving people even when they do wrong. It's not about marriage.

EDIT: ALso, I explained why Jesus used metaphors. He used them BECAUSE we couldn't HACK it. It's like walking up to someone and saying "You know what? YOU'RE A BAD PERSON!!" They're not going to listen to you. But when you use METAPHORS, people begin to see things from ANOTHER point of view, and they realise what's really going on

[DGMacphee]

You're wrong.

It is accepting it as long as you repent for the divorce.

According to the Jeremiah, if you divorce what you have done is wrong in the eyes of God.

But after you repent, you're still allowed back with your wife, according to the text.

God says he will not look on Israel with anger, and thus forgiven the sin of divorce.

If he didn't want them back together, he would have said, "You are not allowed back together" someplace within the text.

But that would go against reforming Israel.

I mean, it's common sense to allow a reunion of man and wife to reform you own state of worship, isn't it?

So, it does allow it.

EDIT: Regarding metaphors -- Bullshit! If someone has a problem with me, for example, they tell me straight what the matter is and I listen. They don't waste time with their stupid metaphor for whatever I've done wrong.

EDIT 2: By the way, while you're at it, can you refute all these contradictions too (I'd like a point-by-point analysis too please, with evidence): http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/?t=contra.txt

[Peter Thomas]

Erm.. I KINDA see where you're coming from, but it's very skewed. Verse 15 says: "Then I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding". Some interpret this as marriage. It is not. The term 'shepherd' is used (widely thoughout the bible) to signify a loving LEADER, not a lover. So God is promising to provide a human network that will strengthen you, as opposed to providing a God-loving lover.

EDIT: YOu are right, DG. Jeremiah ACCEPTS IT!! But it never says anything about getting back together. Deut does not contradict this

EDITEDIT: Good for you, DG, if you can handle the truth. I mean that. But you can't deny it, a lot of people CAN'T. There is no point in Jesus talking plainly JUST for one or two people who can handle it, and leaving twenty others in the denying dark.

EDITEDITEDIT: I WILL do an analysis of some of the contradictions. Mainly because I'm stubborn and I'm passionate and I can be a smart-ass sometimes. But also because I want to genuinely show my beliefs. I won't do ALL of them because I'm lazy (not really - but there are only so many hours I can spend at a computer.) I will put them in a seperate post, however, to break things up a bit, if no one minds the double post.

[DGMacphee]

But the very first few line says: "If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her?"

That puts the entire Jeremiah 3 in context of returning to one's wife/husband.

[Nacho]

Cool Peter Thomas, you´ve response why was Jesus crossified... But I didn´t ask that... My question is clear: Why was he crossified IN SPITE of lapidated?

It´s a totally different question.

[Peter Thomas]

DG - The first verse of Jeremiah is a QUESTION!! It's not saying it's OKAY, it's just posing a question for people to answer within themselves. The line: But you yourself have lived for many years as a prostitute, should be clear enough about that. There is absolutely NO verse that clearly defines it as 'getting back together is cool as a cucumber'.

Farlander: Jesus was crucified because the Jews were MAJORLY under the influence of the Romans. They didn't want Jesus having a Jewish murder, because they didn't want him to be known as a Jew. It was a denial of who he was, by giving him a roman crucifixion.

[Nacho]

False: the Sanhedrin was not able to impose the Romans a punishment, and Jesus crucifixion was made by romans (judged in Pilatos temple, punished by whig by romans... even the inscription in the cross was latin, which, let´s remember, make mention that Jesus was the King of the jews).

How could the Sanhedrin agree with a dead penalty under the acussation of being "King of the Jews", if they wanted to pretend that Jesus was no Jew?

Accept it, if Jesus was the "enemy" of the Jew Church that the gospels claim, he would have been lapidated...

[Peter Thomas]

FARLANDER:: EDIT:: The sign, King of the Jews was irony. You think they believed it?? Yeah - completely. That's why they killed him; because they thought he was the rightful king. That doesn't make ANY sense.

Okay, DG, about that site.

The first couple are NOT biblical contradictions. It's just Paul being Paul. It is widely known that Paul spoke a lot of crap some of the time, and he was very passionate (like me) and he often said ANYTHING as long as it made him look good. This is acknowledged somewhere in the bible (can't remember where off the top of my head).

2 - Exodus 20 says "You shall not MURDER!!"" There is an EXPLICIT EXPLICIT EXPLICIT difference between murder and killing. Murder is the WILLFUL death. Killing is an act of duty, as in the bears that killed forty-two people earlier in my posts.

Actually, a LOT of the killing ones have been dealt with earlier. God killed those who SLANDERED his name. Which is not a contradiciton. He SAYS he will kill christian haters. But this is the muddle up between murder and kill again. It's common for people who have no clue about the bible to assume that they mean the same thing (not trying to make anyone out to be dumb here. It's just a fact)

As for lying: We should not tell lies. When the verses say: "God put a lying tongue in his mouth blah blah blah," it's just letting the reader know that he was a liar. God did not PHYSICALLY insert a tongue with a disposition to lying within his head. Because he was human, and God created all humans, it's just a reference to the fact that God has power over EVERYONE!! (note that this does not equate to control)

The stealing?? The first couple are not contradicitons!! It's just documenting what people did. It's like saying the law says cannabilism is illegal, but that guy in germany still ate a human. That doesn't make the law a contradiciton. It just means people don't FOLLOW the law. The last one is NOT stealing. God PUT the colt there for a purpose. None of this stealing business. He included the thing about "should a person ask you why" as a test of their faith. He wanted to know if they could really stand up for him, or whether they'd buckle.

The sabbath? First the John 5 issue: It says the jews wanted to kill him because he was 'working' on the sabbath. Jesus FIRST says: "My father is always at his work, and I too, am working." People conveniently forget that part. Jesus was preaching the gospel and performing miracles. That does not classify as 'work'. Jesus uses the term work in a sense of irony. Work is a 'bland' or 'non-proactive' activity, such as (believe it or not) collecting sticks. It's a bit much to thing about in TODAY'S society, but let's face it, these things did NOT happen in our society. Again the others don't CONTRADICT the bible. They simply state that people didn't FOLLOW the bible. Whoop-de-doo. Never heard THAT one before.....

The graven images?? What God commanded to be made was an ATONEMENT COVER!! nothing to do with idols, and he CERTAINLY didn't want them to be worshipped. I can't believe these are actually listed as contradictions... *sigh* I was expecting something I COULDN'T answer (yes, believe it or not, there are SOME things I don't know  )

EDITEDIT (other edit (for farlander) at top of page):

FURTHERMORE, the faith/works issue is soooooo wrong (I like to occassionaly insert a childish word here and there) . One is saved by Faith, NOT WORKS ALONE!! That does not mean the two don't work in conjuction. Because they DO!! If you are a true follower of God, you will ACT in his name, meaing you will do works!! That does NOT mean that if you do works, though, you will get to heaven. I guess the 'works' bit is sufficient, but not NECESSARY... that is kind of self explanatory IF YOU READ THE PASSAGE. (At this point I note that I'm sounding angry and impatient. I'm not. I'm just typing quickly to get through as many contradictions as I can. And I'm not going to spend the next half-hour retyping everything just to make it look nice, because then I WILL be impatient   )

Next: Should good works be seen?? The stuff concerning the Pharisees says "Do not do what they do"! WHY?!! BECAUSE THEY'RE DUMB!! They don't practice what they preach, and OBVIOUSLY God doesn't want his people preaching one thing and doing another. I'm seeing a pattern here. People just choose a verse and pose it as a contradiction, without reading the CONTEXT. And then they claim to be all the wiser for it...

As for salves: The exodus thing about "Own a slave for six years" is referring to the price to pay for THIEVERY!! Again, out of context, but not COMPLETELY without reason. This type of slavery is known as PENNANCE, and is different from typcial slavery which is what the site claims to associate it with. The stuff about Canan is a similie. It's not saying that one will ABSOLUTELY be a servant to the other. It means that one will be SUBSERVIANT (completely different meaning) to the other.

I will do more when I can... My bro wants to use the comp for the next couple of minutes. Don't post TOO much at me, or else I'll never be able to go to sleep

[Nacho]

Do you still use the bible as a book of history? Cool, let’s play, I’ll use the Bible and the book of the law of the Jewish, the Misna.

Was Jesus judged by Jewish? I say no:

(Extract of a homework I did for my class of Philosophy, years ago…)

1) According to the Bible, Jesus was judged in Friday: Impossible:

a)   The Sanhedrin could not judge in Friday, the eve on the Sabbath, if it was judging cases that could finish in death penalty.
b)   The Sanhedrin was not able to judge the eve of Easter, according to Misna.

2) The sentence was not able to be said that very Friday; sentences involving death penalty had to be postponed one day.

3) The Bible claims that Caifas, who accused Jesus, was also its judge… Impossible, the Hebrew law forbidden that.

4) Messengers have to be sent everywhere to announce a death penalty, but this is not mentioned in the Bible.

5) If Jesus was accused of being a false prophet, he could have been judged by the 71 members of the big Sanhedrin, which were not in Jerusalem in Easter.

6) The 4th Order of the (chapter VII) of the Misna says that the Sanhedrin could dictate 4 kind of deaths penalties: Lapidating, strangle, burning, and throat cutting. If Jesus was accused of being false prophet, blasphemy, magician and Sabbath profanation, he could have been lapidated or strangled, never crucified.

In addition, many students say that in those times the Jewish council was not able to dictate death penalties.

Conclusion: Someone (Paul?) invented a Jewish trial for making it suitable for the roman population, while all the historical facts aim to a roman judgement.  It was clear that Paul could not export a Jewish religion to Rome if its most important figure was a person who fought against the Roman Empire.

-------

Believing in the good things that you can extract of the Bible is ok, but seeing it as a history book (IMO) not. Look…

I consider myself a good person, and I don´t need the example of a supernatural son of God, of the threat of burning in Hell. The only thing I have extracted of the Bible is that you must do that things that you believe are correct, which includes trusting in the power of the friendship and the love… What matters if that love is felt between to people with the same sex? I can´t really understand it…

[DGMacphee]

Okay, new question.



How do these guys fit into the bible?

[Timosity]

You mean humans are that selfish they think it's all about them? no that can't be right.

[TheYak]

Quick comment on the faith & works issue.  It's my understanding that according to the bible, good works are a side-effect or by-product of faith  (e.g. A man who's generous of heart is likely to give to others). Not contradiction but additional information: good works do not mean you have faith (e.g. A man who gives to others isn't always a generous person... modern example being a person/business who gives to charities merely for the tax-break).  Since it's said multiple times that you go to heaven because of your faith and not because of your actions, I really don't see why they would list this as a contradiction.  

The contradictions site was fairly interesting but I don't see why they bothered with their questions if they weren't going to do a little basic study.  Anyway, I don't distrust biblical text because of contradictions (perceived or otherwise), I distrust it because it's come from far too many sources (all of them human and therefore somewhat flawed). It speaks in metaphors and parables without distinguishing reality from fantasy.  It is subject to interpretation.  That is, a person could derive multiple meanings from the same sections.  Many of the basics are stated rather concretely but some varied aspects of the faith are described rather vaguely.  I also don't see how you (plural) can take things at face-value that are haphazardly translated from several different languages into an archaic dialect of English. If you read the NIV or equivalent, that only adds to the possible errors.  I'm not Christian but was raised to be (18 years).  Despite the fact that some things were taught in a very black & white manner (whether metaphor or not), I've always been doubtful that the bible was meant to be a word-for-word textbook.  I think it ought to be taken more as somebody teaching through a book of poetry.  The words aren't as important as the principles and the emotions they convey.  

Aside from the fact that we're entirely off-topic and into religious debate (again) we're also grasping at straws and nit-picking.  It's the internet for CJ's sake! If you want precise and serious debates, why not compose reports or talk to somebody in person? I think it's usually best to be a bit more generalized when dealing with forum posts (looking at the length of this one so far, I guess I'm being hypocritical  :).

How do these guys fit into the bible?

Massive low-loss compression algorithms, dumbshit.  

Depending upon the sect, you'll probably be referred to Behemoth & Leviathan or to one of several other theories I posted about once-upon-a-thread.