The Bible makes complete sense

In essence, what "real life" and Stash are saying is that whenever there is a contradiction in scripture, one is to discard that version which contradicts the dogmatic version to which they wish to adhere.

I smell **** . . . in fact, i suspect that what i am smelling is bullshit.

Disregarding a contradicting passage in the Bible is what Traditional religions do.

There are two main ideas that reconcile most contradictions in the Bible.

1. We are "redeemed" to eternal life by Christ discarding His flesh on the Day of Judgment.
2. There is a heaven and hell in this world. In the afterlife there is only a Heaven and no hell, but all evil is destroyed.

With these two ideas, there is no contradiction in the Bible concerning "redemption", judgment, or who goes to heaven.

Find me a contradiction.

Disregarding a contradicting passage in the Bible is what Traditional religions do.

What I'm saying is you don't have to discard anything.

There are two main ideas that reconcile most contradictions in the Bible.

1. We are "redeemed" to eternal life by Christ discarding His flesh on the Day of Judgment.
2. There is a heaven and hell in this world. In the afterlife there is only a Heaven and no hell, but all evil is destroyed.

With these two ideas, there is no contradiction in the Bible concerning "redemption", judgment, or who goes to heaven.

Find me a contradiction.

Perhaps you could describe what it is about pointing out that you have posted this drivel in more than one place which constitutes an argumentum ad hominem? An ad hominem argument dismisses someone's thesis on the basis of invidious personal observations. I know nothing about you, and have not commented on you personally. Nothing which i have written constitutes an ad hominem argument. In fact, i specifically addressed your bullshit about Washington, and addressed in general the ludicrous proposition that scripture has ever been successfully predictive. I didn't miss the point at all that you failed to make with your erroneous observations about Washington--your analogy failed, and i pointed out why it failed.

You, however, rather that defend your proposition, whine that you have been personally attacked--when no one here has made an unflattering observation on your personal character. This kind of whine is common among people who wade into a forum such as this and find themselves unable to defend their thesis, or deal with the criticism of the thesis.

Once again, no one has attacked you pesonally. No one has stated that your thesis is flawed because you are stupid, or that your character is flawed. The objections which have been advanced against the nonsense which you have posted have been based on the content of the post--which is bullshit.

Finally, your point of view is neither new nor unique.

stashlazarus wrote:

There are two main ideas that reconcile most contradictions in the Bible.

1. We are "redeemed" to eternal life by Christ discarding His flesh on the Day of Judgment.
2. There is a heaven and hell in this world. In the afterlife there is only a Heaven and no hell, but all evil is destroyed.

With these two ideas, there is no contradiction in the Bible concerning "redemption", judgment, or who goes to heaven.

Find me a contradiction.

The first one is pure Paul and the second one is Judaic which is known to have blended two early traditions (Yahwist and Elohist). How is this 'new'?

stashlazarus wrote:

Disregarding a contradicting passage in the Bible is what Traditional religions do.

What I'm saying is you don't have to discard anything.

There are two main ideas that reconcile most contradictions in the Bible.

1. We are "redeemed" to eternal life by Christ discarding His flesh on the Day of Judgment.
2. There is a heaven and hell in this world. In the afterlife there is only a Heaven and no hell, but all evil is destroyed.

With these two ideas, there is no contradiction in the Bible concerning "redemption", judgment, or who goes to heaven.

Find me a contradiction.

Your point one in no way offers a logical basis upon which to allege that any contradictions have been reconciled. This is important, because internal contradictions make suspect a claim that scripture is divinely inspired and inerrant. If there are contradictions, then one or the other of a set of contradictory passages is incorrect, and the scripture cannot be said to be inerrant--and the proposition that scripture is divinely inspired is beggared by the very existence of contradiction.

Additionally, your point one appears to be a confused and ill-considered contention. You allege that your boy Jesus will give up the flesh on the day of judgment. Therefore, it follows that your boy Jesus is presently incarnate--that is, that he exists in the flesh. Got any reasonable basis for a contention that the boy currently exists in the flesh more than 2000 years after he is alleged to have been born?

You point two is based entirely upon statements from authority on your part about whether or not a "heaven" and a "hell" exists. Leaving aside, however, the issue that no one here knows you to be an authority on such matters--your point two in now serves to reconcile any contradictions.

In short, you claim that two things reconcile the contradictions of the text of scriptures, but you fail utterly to provide any basis upon which to believe that any contradictions have been reconciled. What you offer in extenuation of the contradictions are nonsequiturs which in no way address the issue of scriptural contradiction.

Finally, you are attempting to define contradiction more narrowly than it has been used. You are limiting the subject of contradiction to ". . . 'redemption', judgment, or who goes to heaven." That was not the point that anyone was making. Ignoring that you offer no evidence that your claim about a narrower definition of contradiction, i would remind you that any contradiction of any description throws into doubt the propositions that the scripture is divinely inspired and inerrant.

I don't claim to have authority

Quote:

I don't claim to have authority

Truely?

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:

I don't claim to have authority

Truely?

God has never spoken to me. I don't know if God exists.

But I do see how the Bible can be made to fit together, and any interpretation of the Bible that makes the Bible fit would have to be more creditable.

I refer to your post as spam because of the evidence that you have posted this long screed in more than one place.

As for whether or not i have shown "respect" for your ideas, no one is guaranteed in life that their beliefs and what they say will be treated with respect. This is true whether you post on-line, or are simply speaking to someone else in a face-to-face conversation. To allege that you have been subjected to ad hominem arguments at another forum than this forum is irrelevant to the response you have received here. It is possible for people to disagree with your ideas, even to the point of derision without being said to have attacked you personally.

stashlazarus wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:

I don't claim to have authority

Truely?

God has never spoken to me. I don't know if God exists.

But I do see how the Bible can be made to fit together, and any interpretation of the Bible that makes the Bible fit would have to be more creditable.

Ok, I can go with that however, your opening post seems to suggest otherwise.

dyslexia wrote:

stashlazarus wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:

I don't claim to have authority

Truely?

God has never spoken to me. I don't know if God exists.

But I do see how the Bible can be made to fit together, and any interpretation of the Bible that makes the Bible fit would have to be more creditable.

Ok, I can go with that however, your opening post seems to suggest otherwise.

Sorry about that. We have a tendency to state our beliefs as if we have authority when none of us has any real authority, or knows if God exists or not.

stashlazarus wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

stashlazarus wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:

I don't claim to have authority

Truely?

God has never spoken to me. I don't know if God exists.

But I do see how the Bible can be made to fit together, and any interpretation of the Bible that makes the Bible fit would have to be more creditable.

Ok, I can go with that however, your opening post seems to suggest otherwise.

Sorry about that. We have a tendency to state our beliefs as if we have authority when none of us has any real authority, or knows if God exists or not.

Just so as not to confuse my limited understanding, are you saying that you are the author of the initial post on this thread?

We have a tendency to state our beliefs as if we have authority

Ok; I was wondering who the "WE" was in

Quote:

We have a tendency to state our beliefs as if we have authority

honestly, guessing the date of armageddon has got to be one of the world's oldest pastimes.

so far, every single prediction has been wrong and readjusted to compensate. it could go on forever, or at least until the sun explodes. by then, hopefully we'll have moved, so we can go to another planet and be hysterical.

obsession with armageddon is a great way to measure the cult status of your "religion." it's great for controlling people, hell might not be all as bad as they say, it might not even exist according to some christians, but the end of the world, holy ****! now that's something to piss your pants about.

fear controls people, it turns them into backstabbing morons. go and baa all you like, we'll just feel sorry for you, and a bit annoyed. the end of the world is such old news. at least try to be more original than picking a new date!

tell us that something bizarre will happen that hasn't been pounded out for the billionth time about revelations, like maybe our cars will become sentient like in maximum overdrive, or pizza will take over the world and enslave us all. with all the e.coli and gen-mod crap going around, that's a doomsday scenario that's relatively easy to swallow.