9
   

Contradictions in the Bible...

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:16 am
You may have reconciled yourself with that story, Intrepid. However, I am still disgusted by it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:17 am
As Sodom and Gemorrah had just been destroyed, and his wife turned into a pillar of salt, just who was Lot to have thought was humpin' him in his sleep? Do you really expect reasonable people to buy a contention that a man can get an erection and be stimulated to ejaculation without waking up? Your sex life must be awfully dull.
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:17 am
Intrepid wrote:
material girl wrote:
Intrepid wrote:


You got it. He was asleep. He might have been aware of the events, but not with whom. :wink:


Im sure that would look good in court.
Not only is it incest but its rape.


Rape is only rape when it is not consentual. Do you have proof? Laughing

BTW.... It never went to court.


Do I have proof, no, do you?
If he did agree to have sex with his daughters what is that teaching the youth of today?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:18 am
wandeljw wrote:
You may have reconciled yourself with that story, Intrepid. However, I am still disgusted by it.


Since I have not made any personal opinion on the "story", you are incorrect in your assumption that I have reconciled anything. I am dealing with facts, not emotions. Perhaps you should too.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:19 am
material girl wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
material girl wrote:
Intrepid wrote:


You got it. He was asleep. He might have been aware of the events, but not with whom. :wink:


Im sure that would look good in court.
Not only is it incest but its rape.


Rape is only rape when it is not consentual. Do you have proof? Laughing

BTW.... It never went to court.


Do I have proof, no, do you?
If he did agree to have sex with his daughters what is that teaching the youth of today?


That is my point. Neither of us has proof. Too many if's.....
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:20 am
The only opinion that was asked is whether the incest story represents a contradiction (or not).
0 Replies
 
BDV
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:20 am
Quote:
Matthew 5:38

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.


I think this is the biggest one of them all, where Jesus openly contradicts his/the words of the Old Testament, it raises quite a few questions...

1) Is the Old Testament lies and not a representation of this words of God?
2) Does Jesus teach the words of this God or does he speak of another God who actually doesn't want everyone to die?
3) Why the sudden change in "God's" laws?
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:20 am
material girl wrote:
hephzibah wrote:


Where specifically does the bible say that incest is wrong?


I have no idea if it does but luckily I have common sense to work out for myself that incest isnt a positive thing.


Well, let's talk about culture though. In the Jewish culture "blood line" was everything. You can't make a fair judgement on something looking at it from the perspective of your cultural background or teachings only. IMO anyway. It does say that incest is wrong. And that quite possibly is one of the reasons that law was laid out.
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:20 am
Intrepid wrote:
material girl wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
material girl wrote:
Intrepid wrote:


You got it. He was asleep. He might have been aware of the events, but not with whom. :wink:


Im sure that would look good in court.
Not only is it incest but its rape.


Rape is only rape when it is not consentual. Do you have proof? Laughing

BTW.... It never went to court.


Do I have proof, no, do you?
If he did agree to have sex with his daughters what is that teaching the youth of today?


That is my point. Neither of us has proof. Too many if's.....



I know!!!!!The Bible is here to drive us nuts!!!!
No solid answers, no nothing except words that you can either interpret yourself or have someone else tell you what it means therefore they are controlling you.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:21 am
I see you have sidestepped MG's cogent question as to what sort of lesson that teaches young people. Do you use a censored bobble for the little ones?
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:21 am
Intrepid wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
The incest story in Genesis, though, remains quite a contradiction.


How so? That was before the laws were told.


intrepid, the Lord killed everyone except Noah & his family because of their wickedness, even though there were no laws that established what acts constitute wickedness.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:22 am
The sex between Lot and his daughters could hardly have been blessed by God. It resulted in sons from whom the Moabites and Ammonites descended.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:22 am
Setanta wrote:
As Sodom and Gemorrah had just been destroyed, and his wife turned into a pillar of salt, just who was Lot to have thought was humpin' him in his sleep? Do you really expect reasonable people to buy a contention that a man can get an erection and be stimulated to ejaculation without waking up? Your sex life must be awfully dull.


We are not talking about my sex life. I am surprised that you refer to Sodom and Gemorrah etc. when you openly avow that you do not believe the bible. Is it for convenience sake?
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:22 am
Intrepid wrote:
hephzibah wrote:
Good one material girl. So let me start by asking you a question:

First let me point out that I'm not saying incest isn't wrong, or hasn't been said to be wrong. I just want to start at the beginning with this.

Question #1:

Where specifically does the bible say that incest is wrong?


Hi hephzibah,

I came to this thread out of interest and to offer support. However, your first item does have an answer in the bible.
Leviticus 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.


Thanks intrepid. Smile That's exactly the point I was trying to draw out. The law came after the incident.
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:23 am
yitwail wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
The incest story in Genesis, though, remains quite a contradiction.


How so? That was before the laws were told.


intrepid, the Lord killed everyone except Noah & his family because of their wickedness, even though there were no laws that established what acts constitute wickedness.


Great, so Gods a murderer!!Why is he killing people for our wickedness?
Didnt Jesus die for our sins??!!
Did Noah happen before or after Jesus?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:25 am
hephzibah wrote:
Thanks intrepid. Smile That's exactly the point I was trying to draw out. The law came after the incident.


I am surprised you would endorse a point that is so weak, hephzibah.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:25 am
material girl wrote:



I know!!!!!The Bible is here to drive us nuts!!!!
No solid answers, no nothing except words that you can either interpret yourself or have someone else tell you what it means therefore they are controlling you.


Nobody can control you without your permission.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:25 am
Intrepid wrote:
Setanta wrote:
As Sodom and Gemorrah had just been destroyed, and his wife turned into a pillar of salt, just who was Lot to have thought was humpin' him in his sleep? Do you really expect reasonable people to buy a contention that a man can get an erection and be stimulated to ejaculation without waking up? Your sex life must be awfully dull.


We are not talking about my sex life. I am surprised that you refer to Sodom and Gemorrah etc. when you openly avow that you do not believe the bible. Is it for convenience sake?


No, it is called context. If one accepts that Lot was raped by his daughters and slept through it, then one must accept the Sodom and Gemorrah dodge (two cities which were destroyed for the inhabitants of one of the cities having been rude to an angel). So, yes, it certainly is for convenience sake--because it is convenient in dicussing contradictions in the bobble to refer to the text of the bobble.

Does this mean you don't buy the Sodom and Gemorrah story? Or is it for convenience sake?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:26 am
wandeljw wrote:
hephzibah wrote:
Thanks intrepid. Smile That's exactly the point I was trying to draw out. The law came after the incident.


I am surprised you would endorse a point that is so weak, hephzibah.


If it is, in fact, weak. Provide information to dispute it.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:27 am
wandeljw wrote:
hephzibah wrote:
Thanks intrepid. Smile That's exactly the point I was trying to draw out. The law came after the incident.


I am surprised you would endorse a point that is so weak, hephzibah.


Wandeljw, ummm hmmm... well I'm not done yet. Everything has to start somewhere. I don't see this as being a weak point. I see it as being a starting point to build on. However, most people want to skip building a foundation and slap them walls right up. Now that makes for a weak argument if you ask me.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 01:50:52