Contradictions in the Bible...

How so?

The Bible never says that what they did was right, it just says they did.

The Bible tells the unvarnished version of what happened in the lives of Lot and his family , but also of Abraham, Moses, David, Gideon, Samson and a host of others.

The fact that their sins aren't glossed over or ignored is important I think.

A purely human production written on the subject of sin would tend to ignore the faults of the heroes would it?

But time and again, Israel's finest (and Israel corporately) are shown to be not just fallible and stumbling, but conniving and devious, hard hearted and faithless.

The Bible's view of human nature isn't flattering, but it's accurate.

I'm interested in "the water rose 15 cubits and covered the mountains"

okay, now you've paused dramatically for effect.

so what interests you about it?

He's looking for a place to tie up his rowboat?

Well that's not a contradiction but just a fact..

Not a contradiction. Jesus did not reveal all things, but what the Father only had made known to Him to reveal.

There are no conradictions in The Bible. It is a tale of woe and hope.

Thats ridiculous. Of course it was wrong, but it is not a contradiction. God used imperfect people all the time. Lot was made drunk by his daughters. Why did they get him drunk if he was willing? He wasnt willing thats why they got him drunk.
If people were trying to make Lots family look perfect why would they even include this story. To me this adds to the veracity of the Bible. If you read the passage, The daughters were the responsible ones for the incest. In desperation to bring up decendents they got their Father so drunk he had no knowledge or memory of the events. This part of the story was added to show that had the daughters trusted God as Lot had that there would NOT have been Moabites and Ammonites who later caused great trouble for the Israelites.

I don't find this a contradiction, but no one in this story excuses the behavior either.

I wonder if Set is still monitoring this thread as old as it is.

In the first place, i am not obliged to make observations only on contradictions. (And, no, Neo, i don't monitor this tripe, but having seen you as the last person posting, i did have an interest in looking in.)

In the second place, you're making **** up. Leaving aside the ludicrous claim that he was so drunk that he didn't know his daughters were screwing him (but not so drunk he couldn't get an erection and ejaculate), you have absolutely no scriptural authority for a claim that your boy god did this so that the Moabites and Ammonites would plague the Jews, which is what your bullshit implies. The inference is that god was punishing the Jews of many centuries later because Lot's daughters hadn't sufficient faith in him. Just more evidence of what a cartoon character your god is.

But don't try to excuse Lot as some innocent practiced upon by his wicked daughters. When the alleged angels came to visit him and the local boys comment unfavorably upon it (a completely reasonable thing for them to have done in those times living in a walled city), he tried to fob off his virgin daughters on them--Lot was the kind of scum, just as is everyone in that fairy story, who saw his daughters as no more than chattels, there for his convenience.

In the King James Version, Genesis, Chapter 19, Verse 8:

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

So here's this old goat-******, hallucinating enough to believe that these two jokers are angels (even believing that there are such beings as angels puts his intelligence and sanity in doubt), who is willing to let the mob gang-rape his virgin daughters (hell, they're just females) rather than have his angel buddies disturbed.

My point in all of this is that the stories of the bible, beside being just stories, are a collection of the accounts of scurrilous men and women, who are always excused their venality and depravity so long as they sucked up to Jehovah, and that clown encourages the rape and slaughter anyone who didn't buy the religious party line.

There's not a decent character in the lot of them, including your boy god.

pulling up a chair to watch...

I kinda like this answer.

It's the only answer if you read the book for what's in it rather than for things you can flatter yourself with and use to bray your ignorance all over the environs.

Obviously you do not desire to understand our point of view and can only defend yourself by assuming you superior intelligence over everyone who disagrees with you, thus resulting in the childish derision of the beliefs of others. (and I bet you scream for tolerance of everything else in our society). Your arrogance is clear that you do not desire to discuss or grow in your understanding of why others believe what they believe. So I leave you to your beliefs and you will give account of yourself one day. It is not my place to debate a mind that is made up and is closed and intolerant of the point of view of others.

Your power of observation is to be commended. I have enjoyed reading your posts.

I understand the point of view. No one living in the United States who is not mentally defective could avoid understanding the point of view. The "Christian point of view" gets shoved down everyone else's throats from the time they are small children--Christmas, Easter, Sunday blue laws, singing God Bless America, reciting the pledge of allegiance in school (to which the words "under god" were added, despite that not being the original text written by a Baptist minister), witnessing religious invocations before secular events such as sports matches or graduations--you can't avoid it.

Absolutely nothing of what i wrote assumes superior intelligence. It does assume not accepting something "cuz the bible tells me so." It does involve avoiding self-delusion. I certainly do deride the belief of anyone who accepts every word of the bible as literal "gospel" truth, and it is to those who have such unwavering belief that i address remarks about the morally scurrilous character of the principle actors in the text, and the cartoon-like god described therein.



As is the case with so many people who are spitting out invidious remarks, you abuse the word arrogance. To arrogate is to take upon oneself rights or privileges to which one is not entitled. I am as entitled to express my opinion of the fairy tales you embrace as you are to embrace them and say so. I understand why people believe such things, and the understanding does nothing to promote growth of character, unless one equates the sad realization of the extent to which others are willing to delude themselves promotes the growth of character. You are, of course, free to decide that is the case if you wish.



The problem you have is in not seeing that i haven't discussed what i believe, i have pointed out some of the times when i disbelieve, or when i refuse to believe. As for accounting for myself, you are rather naively applying our belief set to my circumstances. As i have no good reason to believe that any god exists, i have no good reason to believe that i will ever be subject to such an accounting. It is a measure of how unable you are to understand others that you haven't realized that.



It seems that you also don't understand the word intolerant. I don't simply tolerate the domination of biblical fairy tales in my society, i'm not in a position to do anything else. Yes, my mind is made up, but that doesn't mean it is closed. If it were closed, i'd never have come to the conclusions i have reached, and i'd still be a practitioner of the religion in which i was raised.

Once again, it is glaringly obvious that you are the one who is unable to imagine a divergent point of view, or to understand how someone would arrive at such conclusions. I came back to this thread because i had seen that Neo had posted. He and i come from the same childhood religious background. My response was to abandon religion. His was to at first abandon religion, and then to take up a different religious belief set. He and i manage to get along. I suppose that you and i could manage to get along, too . . . but i doubt it--you're too intolerant of those who don't see things your way.

The problem Set has is not seeing that he is unable to imagine what happens in the absence of Christian values. I suspect he daren't imagine it in case it silences him as it has many others of far superior intelligence to that he has been blessed with.

It is grossly irresponsible to attack traditional values without offering alternatives.

Set,
Whether you like it or not this nation was built on Judeo-Christian Principles. No amount of revisionist history can change that. In reading your post again you are correct that you do not clearly say that you assume superior intelligence. I stand corrected. However your tone and insults are personal attacks. Your beliefs are clearly shown in your comments and phrasing. Using the phrase "your boy god" is a personal attack on my belief system an on me personally because you demean my God. There are much better and more respectful ways to express your view that you do not believe that God exists than personally attacking such a deeply personal and held belief by insulting that belief.

Set "I certainly do deride the belief of anyone who accepts every word of the bible as literal "gospel" truth, and it is to those who have such unwavering belief that i address remarks about the morally scurrilous character of the principle actors in the text, and the cartoon-like god described therein."

You have your right to question the Bible and what you perceive (incorrectly) to be its message. You are very misinformed if you believe that those of us who do believe the Bible is the inspired word of God do not recognize the fallibility of its characters. Moses was a murderer, King David was an adulterer, Solomon had 700 wives, Peter denied Christ, Saul (Apostle Paul) murdered Christians. Are any of these behaviors excused at all? Absolutely not!. They were SIN. But that’s the whole point, Man is Evil. He is Sinful. Just because you do not understand the Scriptures in the way we do does not mean we are any less than anyone else or should be the subject of derision.

Since you like definitions:
de⋅ride  /dɪˈraɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-rahyd] Show IPA
"verb (used with object), -rid⋅ed, -rid⋅ing. to laugh at in scorn or contempt; scoff or jeer at; mock.

To mock or laugh at one in scorn or contempt shows that the one doing the mocking, laughing or contempt has an attitude behind it. What is your attitude Set? Is it one of hate? or maybe one of intellectual superiority? Maybe its one of fear? I have no idea. I tend to think all three are possibilities.

I do not mock your belief, I believe you have come to a decision to reject God through your own personal trials, studies and evidence thresholds. Just as I have come to decide through my own life trials, studies and for me the threshold of evidence required to believe that God exists has been met.


Set "i have no good reason to believe that i will ever be subject to such an accounting. It is a measure of how unable you are to understand others that you haven't realized that."

I fully understand that you do not believe in God. I fully understand that since you do not believe in God that you have no reason to feel that you are accountable to anyone or anything. This is your prerogative and as I said I leave you to it. But what you fail to understand that “understanding" another’s belief does not mean it is truth? I am a believer in absolutes. I believe that there is one truth. So whether or not you believe you will be accountable really has no affect on me, as I believe you will. Because I disagree with you does not mean that I fail to understand your belief, or "realize" that others differ.

Set "Once again, it is glaringly obvious that you are the one who is unable to imagine a divergent point of view"

I am not sure how you can come to this conclusion? I can clearly understand your point of view. I have been at the place where I have questioned the existence of God. The evidence that I needed to make an informed decision was met and I chose a different path than you. Because I do believe there is a God there is no way that I can "Accept" your belief system as truth, but can tolerate it and accept your rights to believe as you wish. What you fail to understand is that my God has commanded me to reach out to those who do not know Him and to let them know that He is there. Once I feel that the Spirit has led me to believe that the person is not willing to discuss the Lord with them any longer then I am released from that command. Mth 7:6.

Set: "Once again, it is glaringly obvious that you are the one who is unable to imagine a divergent point of view, or to understand how someone would arrive at such conclusions. I came back to this thread because i had seen that Neo had posted. He and i come from the same childhood religious background. My response was to abandon religion. His was to at first abandon religion, and then to take up a different religious belief set. He and i manage to get along. I suppose that you and i could manage to get along, too . . . but i doubt it--you're too intolerant of those who don't see things your way. "

Now you make assumptions. You do not know what I believe. You do not know who my friends are and you do not know anything about me or how I have come to the decisions I have. One of my dearest friends is an Atheist; I have numerous friends who are agnostic or live lifestyles contrary to my belief system. To be perfectly honest I have such a diverse group of friends and acquaintances I consider myself very blessed to see such a diverse group of viewpoints.

Everything I gleaned from your post was that you take an aggressive stance against Christianity and God. If your deepest and most personal belief were referred to as "your boy god" or a "fairy tale", I think you would glean the same.

As for my statement about arrogance, to me any person with finite knowledge who can declaratively state "There is no God" has to be doing so out of arrogance. Of all the knowledge in the universe from eternity past and for all the knowledge yet to be learned in eternity future, I don't think any human can declare absolutely that there is no God. To me that is arrogance. I make no apologies. Feeble finite humans making such a declaration, when mankind has barely scratched the surface of knowledge of the universe is arrogant.

ar⋅ro⋅gant  /ˈærəgənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ar-uh-guhnt] Show IPA
"adjective 1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.
Synonyms:
1. presumptuous, haughty, imperious, brazen.

In other words mankind is arrogant to declare such knowledge that he has not proven with his limited knowledge.

Because of your comments about "boy god" and “fairy tale" I believe I am safe to assume you do not believe in God. This is your right.

And just to add a bit, My belief in God did not come from blind faith. It comes from gut wrenching study and hard cold evidence that for ME is more than enough to come to the conclusion that this universe and all within it were designed by an incredible intelligence. I choose to believe that this "Intelligence" has revealed Himself in the Bible.

I pray that you find happiness in this life, and I can only hope that you find it in the life to come.

Then you are a fool, sir. For our entire experience as a species has taught us that there are practically no 'absolutes' whatsoever. The entire universe is a shade of gray.



It is equally arrogant to claim there is a god. But this never stopped legions of religious folks from doing exactly that, and damning those like me who don't agree to Hell.

Cycloptichorn

[Spendius said:]The problem Set has is not seeing that he is unable to imagine what happens in the absence of Christian values. I suspect he daren't imagine it in case it silences him as it has many others of far superior intelligence to that he has been blessed with.
[/quote]

Spendius,
I can imagine what happens in the absence of Christian values.
Have you really imagined it: Let's look at those "values" that should apparently you desire to be absent.

Well lets get rid of the Ten Commandments right off the bat.
So lying, murder, infidelity... go for it.

Now let's focus on those specific Christian principles in the Bible:

1Cor. 13: LOVE - Nyahh don't need that useless emotion.

Mth: Chps 5-6 Showing love to your enemies, Marriage, telling the truth, Fidelity, do not be greedy, Forgiveness. Humility.

Gal 5:22 Love, joy peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

Eph 5:9 goodness, righteousness, truth.

James 1: ... wisdom, visiting widows and orphans.

Rom 15:26, 1Cor 13:3 -Feeding the poor.

And this is just a few of them. Because the main one is LOVE: when you love others everything else falls in place.

What results other than above come from a relationship with Christ:

Joy unspeakable, purpose of life, love for all, forgiveness for others and self, grace, comfort in times of trouble, assurance of salvation, companionship, peace that passes all understanding, Hope for the future, doing unto others as you would have them do to you. Freedom from sin, my goodness I could go on all day.

Now lets look at the effect on society if we remove those terrible Christians. Christians give 9 times more to charity than the average household in America which adds up to about an average of 12% of their income.

Christian Charity organizations provide more support for the sick, poor, hungry, disabled, and needy for the dollar than does the government. Because they run better and more efficiently and under Christian principles.
But lets stop that... Christian charities, feeding the poor... and so on.. Just terrible Christian principles.

Spendius, I can imagine a world without these values, and I really don't like what I see.

Seeing as you are so superior in intelligence than I, enlighten me on what the world would be like without " Christian Values" ... Do not stray off on some tangent outside of your statement. Please enlighten me ...

My guess is that the Christian Values you hate are what you view as restrictions on your life.. you know "SIN" yeah sin.. My guess is you despise Christians because they define sin, defining an action as sin makes you feel uncomfortable. You want a world where there is no definition of sin. A world where there is no guilt for any action you do. Thats my guess.