@Cyracuz,
No, no, and no.
You, like many others, are viewing religion not as it really is but as it is asserted to be by zealots, and in so doing you are giving it a mystical quality which I assume you would argue it doesn't deserve.
This is yet another thread intended to question (or even mock) orthodox religious views. This is all well and good, but you, as so many others do, seem to want to insist that religion can be considered in the absence of the religious.
Religions are constructs of humans which (in the case of most of them) originated many centuries ago. It would be utterly amazing if they did not contain contradictions at some level. Most of the contradictions are between early and latter teachings which is to be expected of a developing way of viewing life and the universe.
The fact that many religious zealots insist that all of their religion is the direct product of an infallable God opens the door wide to charges of contradictions.
However, attacking such claims, seems to me, to be the equivalent of attacking a child for his or her view of the world.
It's an easy way to score points, but it's hardly a trumph of the intellect.
What is gained by pointing out (for the one millionith time) that there are contradictions between what is written in the Old Testament and the New Testament or what is written in the Koran and what is preached in a particular Mosque?
