Login/Sign Up




Contradictions in the Bible?
Religion

bookworm
Jun 30, 2009
14 votes
12 debaters
5
4
2
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

8
Yes


thoughtprocess
Jun 30, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
It doesn't matter what contradictions are pointed out to you because you, like many other religious people, will dismiss any contradictions and try and justify any sick teachings the bible has to offer.

I can't resist a challenge though lol. Two obvious and basic contradictions involve two of the commandments. Though shalt not murder/kill and though shalt not steal. If murder is wrong then why did god order the Israelites to slaughter entire peoples such as the Midianites, Amelakites and the citizens of Jericho? They didn't just kill soldiers during the heat of battle. They would also murder children and women.

The second part of the question is if stealing is wrong then why did god and Moses order and sanction the kidnap and rape of the virginal Midianite girls? Most likely young girls as well. The Israelites always stole from the people they slaughtered but it would seem to me that stealing virginal females so that they may rape them would be especially unappealing to god. Unfortunately it is perfectly fine with him.

You can find the bible passages by just searching terms like "genocide in the bible" or "rape, Midianites".

Here is a link to the passage that describes the rape and murder of the Midianites:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2031:7-18&version=31

 
jonjax71
Jun 30, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: bookworm Show

let's start at the beginning

IN GENESIS are two contradictory stories of creation. In Genesis 1:20 & 21, "every living creature" is brought forth from the waters, including every winged fowl." But in 2:19 God brings forth "every beast of the field and every fowl of the air" from dry ground.
In Genesis 1:2, earth comes into existence on the first day, completely underwater. Only by the 3rd day were waters of the deep collected, and dry land formed. But in Genesis 2:4, 5, & 6, earth on the first day was dry land, unwatered.
The first story has trees made on the 3rd day and man formed 3 days later (1:12-13 and 26-31). In the second version man was made before trees (2:7, 9). If chapter 1 is true, then fowls were created before man. If chapter 2 is true, then they were created after man.
Version one teaches man was created after all beasts. The second is clear, Adam was created before beasts. (1:25,27 versus 2:7,19).
In version one, man and woman are created simultaneously (1:27) while in version two (2:7,20-22), man and woman are separate acts of creation.

 
jonjax71
Jun 30, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Not too worry B K, there are many more to go around, as Jimmy Durante would've said, "I gotta millyun of 'em, aaaa chaaa cha cha chaaaaaaaaaa"

 
ryvius
Jun 30, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Once upon a time,

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_ball/bible.html

The End.

 
blackkodiak
Jun 30, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Damn, Jonjax took one of mine!

I've got a few others up my sleeve.

Matthew 27:3-5 says Judas hung himself. Acts 1:18 says he fell in ditch and exploded.

In II Samuel, how many children did Michal bear? Five or none?

Who conquered Hebron? Joshua or Caleb?!

In Matthew 27:9-10 there's actually an error that has survived for much of a millenium regarding what was spoken by the prophet Jerimiah...it was actually Zechariah, not Jerimiah.

Where was Jesus on the sixth hour of his crucifixion, on the Cross or in Pilate's court? (Mark 15:23 vs. John 19:14)

 
cutiepieballer1
Jun 30, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
people have different views on contradictions i do believe maybe there is a few in bible but then again how would we know if they were true or not we werent there all we have to do is follow our religion with faith and belief


 
scarleta
Jun 30, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
My favorite contradiction in Christianity goes like this:

Non-belivers go to hell.

But Jesus said in the sermon on he mount,"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Well, who could be more poor in spirit than an atheist who doesn't even believe in a spirit? If I, an atheist, am poor in spirit why isn't the kingdom of heaven mine like Jesus said?

I think it makes sense.

 
thoughtprocess
Jun 30, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

In the interest of honesty I will state unequivocally that there is in all likelihood no argument that could be posed in defense of religion that would alter my fundamental beliefs on the subject. I attribute that not to me being closed minded but to religion being so vile in it's teachings. I am just a simple human, though, and I can't say I am 100% sure that I cannot learn something by debating the subject of religion. I actually really enjoy debating about it and have learned a lot from people that I completely disagree with.

We are already on a slippery slope, morally, by using the tactics of the Amalekites or Midianites to justify or mitigate the barbarity of the Israelites. I actually don't find it shocking that these kinds of tactics were used by ancient peoples. They come from the early stages of civilization and their barbarity can be understood in that context. What I do have a problem with is that to this day, in our supposedly civilized modern era, that there are people saying that their God sanctioned this kind of behavior and it is justified because of that. This can only have dangerous implications for those who believe this nonsense and also for innocent bystanders that may be victims of the same kind of divinely justified violence.

Even if you deny that rape was divinely sanctified you are still claiming that the children and non-virginal women were justifiably slaughtered by the Israelites. It goes without saying that this is a disgusting philosophy to hold and if you were to try and apply that kind of reasoning to any similar modern day situation you would be labeled as something I am sure you wouldn't want to be labeled as.

As to your claim that there was no "rape" of the virginal Midianite women, what do you suppose they did to these virgins? Why were they spared and not the innocent men, boys and old/deflowered females? I would like you to answer that please because it really does imply that they would use them for sex, whether the females were willing participants or not.

You have to wonder what effect that kind of reasoning, which is still prevalent throughout many societies, has on the modern world. If religious people are willing to find justification for such barbaric and violent acts committed centuries or millennia ago because God approved, and that same God still sets the rules for modern day people, then what is to stop them from committing and condoning hideous acts of violence today?



 
thoughtprocess
Jun 30, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

I should add that it brings to light many contradictions and inconsistencies within the teaching of the bible which is the subject of this debate. How is it that Jesus instructed Christians to "suffer the children", or "turn the other cheek" when acts of violence were perpetrated against them? At the same time Jesus is said to have claimed that the old testament was perfect in its teachings and law to the letter and was not to be altered or changed in any way.

I don't believe that Jesus said any of these things. But unfortunately these are the kinds of contradictory statements that the proto-orthodox Christians attributed to him and this is what millions of people believe. These are of course just a few of the blatant contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible. There are also countless other stories of infanticide, incest, misogyny and genocide in the bible. While you try to justify and make sense of the few that are brought up within this debate there still remain other segments of the bible that are just as untenable.

 
thoughtprocess
Jun 30, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

Oh damn ... why you gots to be sayin dat bout my mama?!

 
thoughtprocess
Jun 30, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thevenerablerob Show

Rob I really hope BlackKodiak responds to you and tears you a new one lol. You set the bar so low in terms of logic that I wouldn't even dare try to get tangled up in all that nonsense. I will point out quickly, though, that Jesus did not put his stamp on the New Testament. The first Gospel, Mark, wasn't even written until 3 decades after Jesus' death. And it wasn't written by the apostle Mark. According to early church history it was most likely written by a Mark who was a disciple of Simon Peter. The rest of the synoptic gospels were written after 60 a.d. and weren't all finished until 100 a.d.

Even then they were changed all throughout this time by numerous scribes adding and subtracting stories. Some of the scribes were illiterate lol. Only a fool would call those texts "god-breathed". The entire new testament itself didn't get compiled until the 4th century. These other books were also written decades after the death of Jesus. No first hand accounts of Jesus' life exist in the bible. They were also, of course, altered and recopied in different languages countless times with thousands of errors appearing throughout the centuries until the King James Bible was finally released.

Your whole faith is based on stories and not even the stories are coherent lol.

 
cmh0114
Jul 01, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
In Revelations, during the end of the world, the mountains disappear multiple times. In the NIV, they disappear three times. In the KJV, they disappear twice. Never is it mentioned that they are all formed again. How does that happen? At the very least, the Bible is neglectful in descriptions.

 
cmh0114
Jul 01, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

So, by your logic, we should be murdering women and children in Afghanistan right about now. After all they (or at least Al Queda through them) attacked us on September 11th, 2001.

"The children that were killed lost their lives because of the parents that refused to leave when Saul warned them of what was coming. This was not merely senseless murder on the part of the Israelites. The Amalekites attacked the Israelites first and started the war. "

We as good as warned them we were going to start a war, now should we murder the Afghan women and children, simply because they chose not to leave their homeland while war is raging around them? That makes us the monsters.

As for the Midianite women, Moses specifically tells the soldiers that they should not have let the women and children live.
"'Why have you let all the women live?' he demanded. 'These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.'" Numbers 31:14-18.
What do the Israelis do with the young virgin girls? They can keep them as servants, or they can keep them as sex-slaves. If they were going to keep them as servants, why not keep the other women? They would probably make better servants, being more experienced in life. The young ones would specifically be kept only if they wanted to have sex with them. And really, it's an army of men. They've been marching for God knows how long (no pun intended), and they haven't had sex for a while. Plus, they've just spent a few days in battle getting their testosterone levels up. Now, they have a huge selection of pretty virgins set in front of them. If God told them not to have sex with the girls, do you think they would have listened, unless God came down to the field? And it's not rape if it's not another person - the girls were slaves, not people. Or, at least, it could be twisted that way by the Israelis.

 
thoughtprocess
Jul 01, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

Watchman ... you have got to go and read your bible because you are making claims that I can hardly even rebut. You are just selecting the parts of the bible that make it seem okay to you but ignoring the blatant facts about your religion. In reality it is a good thing that you and many other religious people, including Muslims, do this. If you all actually read and followed your book, not according to the way you feel like following it, or just picking bits and pieces of it to follow, but actually accepted it in its entirety then all the rest of us would be dead or at war with religious people.

According to the bible Jesus unequivocally states that the old testament law is to be followed and is perfect to the letter. God does say that all those who do not follow his law must be put to death! Countless millions, including women and children are massacred on numerous occasions in the bible because of this, the Jews included! Not just a few people here and there and only on those specific occasions when God ordered it!

You are trying to act as if Islam is guilty of this crime but your religion is not lol. It is so typically myopic of religious people to be able to believe such fallacy. All of your religions are based on the same kinds of teachings. When there were Christian empires back in the day people were murdering and burning each other at the stake in the name of god. You think it is because Christianity teaches peace that there is not more Christian violence? LOL. It is only because Christianity has been hobbled by progressive secular advancements like the separation of church and state that there is not more Christian violence.

Even still there is Christian violence going on in places like Northern Ireland and in the Balkans where thousands are murdering each other while claiming their version of the Christian faith is superior.

You are forced to cherry pick and ignore the actual teachings of your religion so that you can be civilized and live your life in a manner that you see as good. I don't have to do that. I can state my opinions and beliefs without having to ignore any teachings from some ancient book.

You asked why I don't believe Jesus said any of the things that the early Christian authors attribute to him. It is because I have more respect for Jesus than most Christians do. I don't know if Jesus was good or bad or what he said. I know what these people claim he said. I know enough about the history of Christianity to know that politics and infighting amongst the countless Christian sects have much more to do with the writings in the bible than do the actual words of Jesus.

I also know it is impossible for Jesus to have performed miracles. Just like I know Mohammed didn't ascend into heaven on a white horse, and that Zeus didn't send bolts of lighting down on the heads of ancient Greeks, and that the sun is not a God, and that Buddha wasn't born from a slit in his mother's skin. It is all myth. I would have to be so credulous to believe any of this stuff that there would be no point in me having a brain.

 
blackkodiak
Jul 02, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thevenerablerob Show

"Wow, I've never seen such a simplistic and twisted interpretation of the Bible"

Fair enough. I don't really know what I'm talking about when it comes to interpretations of the Bible, and I'm not here to debate the authenticity of said Bible, nor its importance in modern society, particularly with you. To do so would be unproductive.

Somebody wanted us to look for inconsistencies, so I went looking for them.

 
thoughtprocess
Jul 02, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

I don't have the time right now to go and search for the actual passages but they are there my friend. I have read most of the bible, except for a few of the old testament books, but I will look to see if I can find any juicy tid bits tonight.

I will ask you this: If God was willing to order and participate in the murder of innocent people for seemingly ridiculous reasons then what stops a Jew or a Christian from interpreting that as an excuse for them to kill for arbitrary reasons? Or worse yet for when they believe their "faith" is threatened. I mean God ordered and committed such horrifically violent acts, so what stops Christians or Jews in particular from interpreting their texts in a way that condones such perverse violence.

For instance, when God summoned two female bears to slaughter children who had made fun of Elisha's baldness. Or what about when God slaughtered all of the first born sons (and animals I think) of Egypt? This is actually a celebrated event for Jews known as passover. What about when David took a census of the Jews and God got angry and slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent Jews?

Now, Jesus was a Jew and most likely read (or had read to him because he was most likely illiterate) and believed in the old testament. According to the new testament he said that old testament law was perfect. This law of course includes putting people to death for not honoring sabbath and treating your women as property. Also it can be deduced from the old testament that God didn't punish the Israelites when for instance, Lot offered up his daughters to be raped, or when they killed innocent children. He did punish or order his followers to punish/kill others when they didn't worship him correctly.

IT IS VERY POSSIBLE TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE, IN THE EYES OF GOD, TO OFFER UP YOUR DAUGHTERS FOR RAPE, KILL CHILDREN OR COMMIT OTHER HEINOUS ACTS.

Sorry, lol, I wanted to make that point extra clear. You as well as many Muslims claim that according to your holy books there is no way someone can be in accordance with its teachings and commit criminally violent acts. The thing is in your books one verse may say, "Thou shalt not kill", and the next line God or his people are offering up their children for rape or slaughtering the children of their enemies.

You are most likely just a good guy Watchman. That is why you are a good person. You have chosen the parts of the bible that line up with your innate goodness. I think there is a strong possibility that you would be a good person without all of that religious stuff but I can't say for sure. What I can say is that there are millions of people worldwide, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and others that wage war and commit unspeakably violent acts in the names of their Gods and that would not necessarily have any reason to be killing each other UNLESS they were religious.



 
scarleta
Jul 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: bookworm Show

Right, I sort of understand your first post, but your second deosn't make any sense. What does the phrase "poor of" even mean? I've never heard it before in my life.
As for your first post the way I interpret it is that Jesus was reassuring those who felt poor in spirit that they would go to heaven, because those who feel poor in spirit are the ones who led a spiritual life. If that is what you were trying to say, then thank you for clearing that up.

 
scarleta
Jul 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

This doesn't really have to do with contradictions in the bible, but I just had to point something out.
You said that people who kill in the name of christ aren't really following him, but what if they truly believe christ want's them to? Then it really was christianity's fault. Sure people will line up to say, "Our religion doesn't teach this," but it was still the killer's religion that made him do it.

 
thoughtprocess
Jul 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: bookworm Show

You said, "Oh, yes, and I forgot to mention that the Jews aren't actually celebrating the slaughter of the Egyptians in the Passover feast, they're celebrating God's mercy in sparing them."

Ohhhh ... okay ... lol I didn't realize that was what it was about. It would be like if the Germans celebrated the fact that Hitler passed them over and spared their lives when he slaughtered 6 million innocent Jews. Sick ... twisted ... disgusting religious thinking.

 
thoughtprocess
Jul 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: bookworm Show

"According to the new testament he said that old testament law was perfect. I would really like to see a reference to this."

It's in Matthew. Look it up.

 
thoughtprocess
Jul 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

Watchman I was going to look for specific bible passages to support my statement that God orders people to kill non-Jews or non-Christians but I realized I wouldn't be debating strongly by conceding to such a demand. I have brought up numerous examples of the violence perpetrated in the bible that would make many people feel disgusted and realize that at the very least the bible can easily be interpreted in such a way as to condone all forms of violence.

In this debate you really have all the room to move and dance around all my previous posts. If I bring up the Amalekites or the Midianites you say they and THEIR CHILDREN were slaughtered because of their actions against the Israelites. If I bring up the story of the tenth plague in Exodus you can blame the Pharaoh for not giving into God's demands. You went so far as to say the deaths of the first born sons of Egypt are the DIRECT result of the Pharaoh's failure to listen to God. The direct result of their death's, even if you don't find anything morally wrong with this, is God killing them. The indirect result of their death's is the Pharaoh's fault. And then I am asked if I have read the story?

I may or may not have been able to find actual quotes in the bible where God orders explicitly the killing of those who don't follow him. The reality is that 38% of Americans believe in the bible literally. From what I have gleamed from your previous posts you too interpret the bible literally. That means that 38% percent of the population believes and justifies their God's actions even when it comes to the slaughter of children. I have no rebuttals to this kind of thinking.

The fact is that to this day there are people who interpret the stories of the bible to justify their violent actions. Zionists who believe they have a divine right to Israel, Christians in America who are preparing for Armageddon, kill abortion doctors or teach their children that the Earth is 6 thousand years old (a form of mental abuse in my opinion).

All I can say is that it is your choice, obviously, to believe whatever you want to believe. I can only say, THANK GOD (pun intended), that I do not believe in what you believe. I choose to be a person who would refuse to try and rationalize or justify mass murder, or the killing of children, or viewing women as property or less than men or any of the other horrors in bible. I'm not saying that you would ever do any of these things but you are in the same company as those who do, whether you realize it or not. There is no book that links me to that way of thinking.

Oh and I wasn't eating Chicken wings. I was eating beef lo mien, fried dumplings and boneless spare ribs so Ha! And my bible doesn't have any dust on it because it is in digital format on my computer. Booyahasha!



 
thoughtprocess
Jul 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

If you hear that in one of the towns that Yahweh your God has given you for a home, there are men, scoundrels of your own stock, who have led their fellow citizens astray, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," hitherto unknown to you, it is your duty to look into the matter, examine it, and inquire most carefully. If it is proved and confirmed that such a hateful thing has taken place among you, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword; you must lay it under the curse of destruction - the town and everything in it. You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot, offering it all to Yahweh your God. It is to be a ruin for all time and never rebuilt. (Deuteronomy 13:12-16)

I actually came across that as I was reading Sam Harris' "The End of Faith". Good book. You should check it out. I'll read the whole bible again if you read that book. ;o)

P.S. And don't go worshiping any false gods buddy. Lest you fall under the sword of one of your congregation lol.



 
thoughtprocess
Jul 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is
withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they
are burned." (John 15:6) I'm sure this was a favorite of those running the Inquisition.

Even metaphorically this is weird.

 
forrestgump
Jul 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Of course there are contradictions in the bible, for it was not directly written by God. Even the Genesis creation story contradicts because first man was created in the image of God, then was created form the dust of the Earth. The bible is a collection of dozens of different divinely inspired books written thousands of years apart by many different authors. When the Vatican stitched together the official version when Christianity began in Rome, only some books went in and others were tossed out. The bible is a bleak attempt by humanity understand God, which we never truly will. All we do know is God's message of love toward one another. When we start fighting with each other over the God and the bible, the we know we aren't interpreting the message correctly.

 
scarleta
Jul 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: bookworm Show

Of course it s the religion's fault.

If I decided to kill in your name, true, that is not your fault. But what if my parents were clinically insane bookworm fanatics who taught me, brainwashed me even, from the time I was born that duty to bookworm was the highest possible good? Later on, as an adult, because of a misinterpretation of bookworm's user profile on convinceme, I incorrectly think that to kill in the name of bookworm would make bookworm happy. I then kill someone, thiking that I am doing not only the right thing, but the best thing possible.

If you ask me it's not to hard to see who the villian in that story is. It's not the zealot's fault because he subscribes to a non-standard interpretation of his beliefs, but the fault of the religion that brought him up to think that service to god, or bookworm, is the best thing a person can do. If it weren't for his beliefs, his religion, the zealot would not care one bit about what a holy book says. But if as a child he was taught about the paradise given to any martyr, then who is to blame when he decides to be a suicide bomber, or kill an abortion doctor?

 
scarleta
Jul 06, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: bookworm Show

I would like to contine this argument, but this is not the place as it has little to do with contradictions in the bible. I've sent you the challenge. Feel free to accept or decline.

 
thoughtprocess
Jul 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: bookworm Show

I read a "Letter from a Christian Citizen" and it was completely idiotic. It is the same old, tired argument from the religious. I read this kind of crap when I was a kid in C.S. Lewis' books. How can you say what is good or what is bad if there is no God (ultimate standard)?

Where the hell do religious people get off using such idiotic logic? Because people are capable of making moral judgments this means there is a God? To people who use their brains this means nothing. This is what justifies belief in the stupidest and most popular God, the Abramic God?

And why do you need someone like myself, who despises your religion, to tell you where in the bible you can find such an important passage such as the one in which Jesus states the old testament law is perfect to the letter? Shouldn't you know this? Is this not the inspired word of your God? Don't you think it would be important to know such things?

Use your imagination and search for it on Google. I could tell you the passage but I really just don't feel like it.

 
+ Add Argument

6
No


bookworm
Jun 30, 2009
4 convinced
Rebuttal
I've heard a lot about there being contradictions in the Bible, and I don't believe there are any, so I challenge you all who do believe there are contradictions to come up with one that I (or someone else of course) cannot reconcile reasonably.

 
watchman81
Jun 30, 2009
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

Alright TP, I'm gonna try to take you on with this one. I'll try to address BK and Jonjax too if I have time.

I'll address your first statement about religious people first. By the same token, you will probably dismiss outright any argument I give on this matter like most people who attack religion. I would hope I'm wrong, but I've noticed that while there are religious people who will believe what they are taught without questioning it, studying it, or being willing to hear an argument against it, there are also anti religious people who will do the same with their beliefs. Both sides should be willing to sincerely consider the arguments of the other side.

"Though shalt not murder/kill and though shalt not steal. If murder is wrong then why did god order the Israelites to slaughter entire peoples such as the Midianites, Amelakites and the citizens of Jericho? They didn't just kill soldiers during the heat of battle. They would also murder children and women."

This has always been a very controversial issue with the Bible. I'll address the issue of the Amalekites first.

If you actually read the bible in context on this matter, you see that the Amalekites were not innocent victims in this conflicts. From the time that the Israelites fled Egypt to the time they destroyed the Amalekites, the Amalekites had constantly attacked, harassed, and killed Israelites.

When the time came to attack, Saul warned the innocent among the Amalekites of the impending attack and urged them to leave so that they would not get caught in the fighting. The children that were killed lost their lives because of the parents that refused to leave when Saul warned them of what was coming. This was not merely senseless murder on the part of the Israelites. The Amalekites attacked the Israelites first and started the war.

Now I will address the Midianites issue. Again, the Midianites were not innocent victims in this affair, but their attack against Israel took a very different form.

The Midianites decided to have a very large group of the women go over to the Israelites in order to seduce them. This would help to turn the Israelites away from God, and they also intentionally gave the Israeli men diseases (called "plague" in the bible). This would be equivalent to some country sending their women to seduce the men of the US in order to give them AIDS. Pretty weird stuff, but this is what happened in the Bible, and this is why Israelites destroyed them as well.


As for the supposed "rape" of the Midianite women, this is completely false. Nowhere in the bible does it say that the Israelite men raped the Midianite women. As a matter of fact, rape is expressly forbidden by God in the Bible. Anyone engaging in this behavior would have been put to death. It is possible that it could have happened, but it was in no way sanctioned by God.


 
thevenerablerob
Jun 30, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: blackkodiak Show

Wow, I've never seen such a simplistic and twisted interpretation of the Bible. Actually, that's not true. Lordhaines showed me a greater one, once. Let me do the honours of rebutting those that you have given verses for. I can't on those you have simply because I'm not gonna google them to find some Bible bashers who hasn't read the good Book say the same thing.

First of all, I find the Michal one VERY hilarious. Michal, referred to in II Samuel 6:23 is a female. A woman who's contempt of David showed largely, though he was rejoicing for the Lord. II samuel 21:7 gives the name of Mephibosheth, loosely translated as Michal... the GrandSON of Saul. So we have a male and a female - two different Michals, chaps! I bow to your adept skill at finding contradictions in the flawless Bible. :P

Next to Judas. It does not say he fell in a ditch. rather, after hanging himself, when he hit the ground, his innards exploded. This is clearly written - the falling part even in parenthesis.

Finally, the Crucifixion. Jesus appeared before Pontias Pilate at noon on the preparation day of Passover (John 19:14). Mark 15:23 describes the actual crucifixion as having taken place at 9:00 in the morning the day after. You and I both know that a night passed before Jesus was crucified, simply because Peter denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed - signalling dawn. Take a look at the Bible, lads - don't just refer to incompeteant websites.

Finally, many books of the Bible (referred to as the Apocrypha) have been rejected from the Bible because they are not canon and they are not Inspired by God (God-breathed). These books do, indeed, contradict both eachother and the Old Testament. In fact, they don't even have a correct account of history. One verse states that Tobit was alive at 722 BC and again at 931 BC, yet the same Book claimed he was alive for only 158 years. Judith claims that nebuchadnezzar reigned in Ninevah. Very blatant inerrancies, which explains why these books are not canon or acceptable in the perfect Word of God.

There are several reasons that the Bible is not contradictory. First of all, the Books of the Bible are Canon/ For two examples:

The books have a ring of self-vindicating authority. Old testament Prophets stated many times that, "The word of the Lord came to me" or "Thus saith the Lord". These Books were God-Breathed or Inspired by God. So they are determined by God. Man recognizes the canonicity of the Bible, also.

Man's recognition is based upon three factors, all of which prove positive:

Is it Authorative? As I have stated, the Old Testament states 'Thus saith the Lord' more than 3,000 times

Is it Prophetic? Yes, actually. Prophets and apostles were the only Inspired humans of the canon chapters of the Bible.

Is it Authentic? A book that teaches a false truth or opinion contrary to the Lord is not considered authentic. Every Book of the standing Protestant Bible has passed authentication.

Is it Dynamic? Yes, the Bible has the Power to change lives.

Was it received, used and preserved by the people of God? Despite best efforts of some (Voltaire and Diocletian), and according to the Bible itself, the Bible never became extinct. In fact, it is the most purchased literature today.


Furthermore, Jesus put His stamp of approval upon both the truth of the Old Testament anf the truthfulness of the New testament. (this does not mean he approved of the actions of many during the Old testament times. Such as in the time of Judges, "...the people did what they thought good in their own eyes."

If I must, i shall put forth proofs of Godly Inspiration, as well.



 
bookworm
Jul 01, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: scarleta Show

When Jesus said that the poor in spirit are blessed, He was talking about those who FEEL their spiritual poverty. You don't feel poor in spirit, because you have no spiritual life in you. Someone who's dead doesn't feel something. Only those with spiritual life will feel poor in spirit, and having spiritual life means that they are saved, so then the kingdom of heaven WILL be theirs. All seven of the characteristics Jesus mentions there are marks of spiritual life (mourning - for your sins, not for people, etc; hungering and thirsting after righteousness - not exactly something you find in an athiest. They are all together, and are talking about God's children).

 
thoughtprocess
Jun 30, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

LOL!

 
watchman81
Jun 30, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

Good questions and points. Unfortunately, I won't be able to answer them until tomorrow! I'll hit you back then.



 
watchman81
Jun 30, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

And by the way, yo' momma's so fat that it takes her a full day to "turn the other cheek!"

 
thevenerablerob
Jul 01, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

I will address your doubts of the Bible being God breathed in a later post, because actually the proofs and logical reasonings are overwhelming. Furthermore, not a one was illiterate. Every author had either Prophetic or Apostolic authority or it is (was) NOT considered canon - hence a reason a few of the Apocrypha are not canon.

Actually, your sources are incorrect. Every verse of the New testament was complete a mere 100 years after Jesus death. They may have been compiled by the Romans until 400 AD, but the canonicity considerations I have outlined are compleetly and totally considered.

Jesus pre-authorized the New testament with these words:

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." John 16:13

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." John 14:26

I find your lack of faith in Godly inspiration disturbing, so I will get around to posting the proofs of Inspiration. :P

Now to address ryvius:

“GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.”


There are too many verses that the chap Ryvius quoted has gathered. However, not a one is an actual contradiction. You may see that the Bible is not necessarily in order according to historical time. Furthermore, one MUST read in context. Taking parts of verses can come up with such contradictions that you could even see ‘…there is no God.” Read the thing properly and you see, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” See what I mean? You’ve gotta read it according to several principles which I shall lay out.
First, I’ll rebut a few more of Ryvius’s site’s quotes to destroy credibility:

"GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later."


This one is not contradictory, it is just difficult to decipher. I can not interpret what exactly it means, but I can tell you that Chapter 2 of Genesis, which contains most of this chaps ‘contradictions’ refers to the garden of Eden. God did Not create the garden first, but the rest of the world. In fact, it says here, “Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the East, and there he placed the man he had created (Adam). And the Lord God planted all sorts of trees in the garden…” Genesis 2:8-9. So God created Adam and then the Garden of Eden, which He filled with newly formed trees, animals and plants.

“GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.”


This one is not even contradictory. Anybody can clearly see (if one reads) that God wants Able to own up to his sins. God wants Able to admit that he has sinned – though God already knows of the deed. The answer comes of no surprise to the Lord. See, it’s more of what the Lord wanted Able to admit rather than the actual answer (unless Able lied to the Lord, which would have been worse).


"GE 7:7 Noah and his clan enter the Ark.
GE 7:13 They enter the Ark (again?)."

A clear reiteration of the first statement. It says, “The rain continued to fall for fourty days and fourty nights. BUT Noah had gone into the boat that very day (referring to the seventeenth day of the second month) with his wife and sons… and their wives.”

So you see that any of the so called contradictions that are ‘found’ are merely confused details which one does not bother to inspect with close scrutiny.

Interpretation of the Bible must be as follows:

The Historical Principle. We must view a passage in its original and cultural setting. For example, Luke 10:3-4 states, “Go your ways: behold, I send you fourth as lambs among wolves. Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.” This would give the appearance that the Disciples were being rude or something, right? However, the ‘salute’ was an elaborate form of greeting that bypassed a wave and hello by far. Typically it involved actually sitting down, asking after the relatives of the person and the family and making small talk about life – this could yawn on for more than an hour. Jesus recognized that his Disciples would get nowhere if they spent a hour’s salute with every person. A simple greeting would have to suffice.

Contextual principle: Read and understand in context. I have shown that the result if one doesn’t is ghastly.

Grammatical principle: This often leads to supposed contradictions. For example, the so called contradiction in 1 John 1:10, “If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.” And 1 John 5:18, “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not.” Close scrutiny shows that ‘sinneth’ indicates a perpetual or habitual action (repetitive sinning). Thus it is NOT a contradiction at all.

Synthetical Principle: Must always a verse of scripture in light of other passages of Scripture (cross reference them).



 
bookworm
Jul 01, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

'IN GENESIS are two contradictory stories of creation. In Genesis 1:20 & 21, "every living creature" is brought forth from the waters, including every winged fowl." But in 2:19 God brings forth "every beast of the field and every fowl of the air" from dry ground.'
There are different accounts of why this is. It's not abundantly clear, but what is meant by 'every living creature' is those that live in the ocean, not the 'beasts of the field', clearly specified later. The contradiction in Genesis 2:19, saying that God created the birds and animals form the ground (not dry ground, either, necessarily), is often explained as that when God commanded Adam to name the animals, He created again another pair from each 'kind' so Adam would have them right there. So then He also created the birds. But like I said, there are different interpretations, so I'll do a little more research and get back on that.

'In Genesis 1:2, earth comes into existence on the first day, completely underwater. Only by the 3rd day were waters of the deep collected, and dry land formed. But in Genesis 2:4, 5, & 6, earth on the first day was dry land, unwatered.'
In Genesis 2:4,5,6, it states that it had not rained. Also, the use of the word day here, in combination with the phrase 'these are the generations of the heavens and the earth' seem to be referring to the whole creation period. It says that God made the plants whole, not from seed, because there had been no rain.

'The first story has trees made on the 3rd day and man formed 3 days later (1:12-13 and 26-31). In the second version man was made before trees (2:7, 9).'
This is referring to God planting and making the Garden of Eden, a sort of second creation, NOT a retelling of the creation in a separate way. There were already plants on the earth, but this was a special creation, God planting a garden (as in 2:8), not a retelling of how He created trees in the first place.

'If chapter 1 is true, then fowls were created before man. If chapter 2 is true, then they were created after man.'
This is sort of the same thing, and my explanation for the first 'contradiction' you proposed explains this one too.

'Version one teaches man was created after all beasts. The second is clear, Adam was created before beasts. (1:25,27 versus 2:7,19).'
Ditto

'In version one, man and woman are created simultaneously (1:27) while in version two (2:7,20-22), man and woman are separate acts of creation.'
Version two, as you call it, is an expanding of the original story. Chapter one is a summary. Chapter 2 expands. Man and woman were created on the same day, as stated in Chapter 1 (it doesn't say in chapter 1 that God created them at the same time), but they were not created at the same time. Simple.

To be sure, some of these do look like contradictions, and my reconciliations could, naturally, be false. But you're coming at this from the angle, 'I'm looking for contradictions.' I come from the angle 'I don't believe there are contradictions - is there a reasonable way to reconcile them.' And there is. That's all I'm trying to show you. You can go ahead and still believe they're contradictions, and that my reconciliations don't really work. That's your choice. But I have shown you that there are reasonable reconciliations.




 
watchman81
Jul 01, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

"What I do have a problem with is that to this day, in our supposedly civilized modern era, that there are people saying that their God sanctioned this kind of behavior and it is justified because of that."

As you and I have discussed many times before, throughout history, there have been a lot of religious zealots who have killed innocent people in the name of their religion. I don't think there is anyone who DOESN'T have a problem with this other than the people who are doing it.

"It goes without saying that this is a disgusting philosophy to hold and if you were to try and apply that kind of reasoning to any similar modern day situation you would be labeled as something I am sure you wouldn't want to be labeled as."

You're right. The thing of it is though, as Christians, we aren't supposed to apply this to any modern day situation. You and I have discussed Islamic terrorism in the past. The difference between terrorism carried out in the name of Muhammad and terrorism carried out in the name of Jesus is that the Christian bible does not exhort its followers to kill unbelievers whereas, the Koran does. Let me explain. The violence that God commanded in the Bible was specific only to the people God was commanding at the time. Example: When God commanded King David to conquer a certain people, the commandment was meant only for David against the specific people God was against and only at the time God commanded it. One cannot read the Bible today and find a verse that tells the believer reading it to kill anyone who doesn't believe. However, the Koran orders its people to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them".

There is no good reason for a Christian in this day and age to commit violent acts in the name of Jesus and anyone who does so is NOT following the teachings of Christ. I don't really have to be worried about being labeled as anything, since I don't believe the Bible tells me to commit violent acts against anyone.

"I would like you to answer that please because it really does imply that they would use them for sex, whether the females were willing participants or not."

I'm not 100% sure why the virgins were spared instead of the others. I'd have to do more research on that. However, my point still stands that the Bible NEVER commands or endorses rape. It was a custom at the time for a people to take women as wives or servants as spoils of war. This did not necessarily mean rape took place. As I stated before, rape is expressly forbidden in the Bible and it was also forbidden under Jewish law. A man would be put to death if he was caught doing this. I'm not saying it never happened, I'm saying it was not sanctioned by God or the Bible.

"If religious people are willing to find justification for such barbaric and violent acts committed centuries or millennia ago because God approved, and that same God still sets the rules for modern day people, then what is to stop them from committing and condoning hideous acts of violence today?"

I can only speak for Christianity on this issue. And the answer is clear: Christian are NOT commanded to commit hideous acts of violence, which is why you don't see Christians flying planes into buildings in the name of Jesus Christ. There has been violence in the name of Jesus, but as I said before, these people weren't true followers of Christ and shouldn't be considered as such.



 
watchman81
Jul 01, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

"I should add that it brings to light many contradictions and inconsistencies within the teaching of the bible which is the subject of this debate. How is it that Jesus instructed Christians to "suffer the children", or "turn the other cheek" when acts of violence were perpetrated against them? At the same time Jesus is said to have claimed that the old testament was perfect in its teachings and law to the letter and was not to be altered or changed in any way."

As I stated in my previous post, the Old Testament does not call current believers (ie people reading of these battles) to perform the same acts. It is clear that God's commandments at these times were meant only for the people He was speaking to and not everyone who is reading about it.

By the way, I believe you have misinterpreted the "turn the other cheek" verse. This verse isn't meant to prohibit acts of self - defense. It is meant as a response to insults and humiliation.


"I don't believe that Jesus said any of these things."

Why?




 
bookworm
Jul 01, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: cmh0114 Show

They were to marry the girls if they wanted them. And the reason they had to kill all people but virgins is because sexually transmitted diseases were rampant in that area. The Canaanites (lumping together Midianites, Jebusites, etc) were known for their sexual immorality and way of living. God needed to protect His people from the sexually transmitted diseases floating around, so He had to order the others killed (not to mention they deserved death anyway, as the punishment God instituted even before the Fall as a punishment for sin). And yes, like I said, they were not to have sex with the girls unless they married them. Also, I don't imagine it was such a huge selection of pretty virgins - most girls wouldn't have stayed virgins very long in that society.

 
watchman81
Jul 02, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

TP,


I have read my bible and have never once found a verse that tells me to kill those who do not believe in Christianity. As a matter of fact, neither have you! If you had, I'm sure you would have posted it by now. There is no verse in the Bible that says "Hey Christian! Kill everyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ!" If you happen to find one, I'd love it if you could share. Good luck!


"According to the bible Jesus unequivocally states that the old testament law is to be followed and is perfect to the letter. "

Have you ever read the old testament? I think you had said sometime before that you had a Catholic upbringing but since you don't believe in it, I'm not sure if you've actually read the Bible or not. The Old Testament does not tell its readers to kill anyone. It does tell the stories of the specific people he ordered to destroy another nation, but nowhere does it exhort its believers to do the same.


Your statement that the Christian teachings are just as violent as Islamic teachings is just silly. I have already explained that the Bible does not order its followers to kill people who don't believe as they do, but the Koran clearly does. I can supply the verses if you want, but I think I've already done that in our previous debates. This is not a myopic belief, but fact! All one has to do is read a little bit on the subject and they will see it. Even people who are not Christians will still admit that violence done in the name of Jesus is NOT biblical or endorsed by Jesus. There are Atheists who can see the clear difference between violence in the name of Christianity and violence in the name of Islam.


As I stated before, there has been violence done by Christians. There have been horrible things done in the name of Christ. The Christian Empires you speak of, the Crusades, the Inquisitions. No one is denying this. However, if you actually read the teachings of the Bible, you realize that none of these actions were justifiable. These people claimed to be doing this in the name of Jesus Christ, but they were not. They were using Christianity as an excuse to conquer and destroy. There are no verses in the Bible that would endorse or justify these actions in any way. Unfortunatley, the same can't be said of Islam because they actually are following the teachings of the Koran.

"You are forced to cherry pick and ignore the actual teachings of your religion so that you can be civilized and live your life in a manner that you see as good. I don't have to do that. I can state my opinions and beliefs without having to ignore any teachings from some ancient book."

Not at all. My Bible does not command me to do anything that I feel is wrong. I don't have to kill anyone who doesn't believe as I do, I don't have to become a martyr to ensure my place in heaven, and I don't have to hate anyone. There is nothing to cherry pick. Unfortunately, critics of Christianity and the Bible have a very limited knowledge of Christianity and its teachings, which lead to views like yours.



 
watchman81
Jul 02, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

"I don't have the time right now to go and search for the actual passages but they are there my friend. I have read most of the bible, except for a few of the old testament books, but I will look to see if I can find any juicy tid bits tonight."

Well when you're done eating your buffalo wings with bleu cheese dressing, you just go ahead and whip out that bible, blow the dust off of it, then find those verses!

"If God was willing to order and participate in the murder of innocent people for seemingly ridiculous reasons then what stops a Jew or a Christian from interpreting that as an excuse for them to kill for arbitrary reasons?"

The fact that it doesn't tell the Christian or Jew to kill for arbitrary reasons! People who kill arbitrarily in the name of Jesus are NOT following Jesus' teachings! They are only claiming to. If someone kills in the name of Buddha, most people would know that they are not following his teachings. If I went and killed some random guy on the street in the name of Thoughtprocess because this guy didn't like Bleu Cheese dressing, it doesn't mean that you actually would endorse this action. I would be intentionally using your name to justify something that you do not. This is what the Crusaders, inquisitors, and other "Christians" have done throughout history.

"Or what about when God slaughtered all of the first born sons (and animals I think) of Egypt?"

Uh, have you read this story at all? It's in Exodus, just in case you haven't. Everything that happened to Egypt was a direct result of Pharoah's failure to listen to God and free his Hebrew slaves. The blood of these children are on the head of Ramses.

As for your other objections, I'll have to get to them later!

 
bookworm
Jul 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

'IT IS VERY POSSIBLE TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE, IN THE EYES OF GOD, TO OFFER UP YOUR DAUGHTERS FOR RAPE, KILL CHILDREN OR COMMIT OTHER HEINOUS ACTS.'
Yes, you're right, that's possible - IF you only look at the passages and not the teaching of the Bible. Sure, the Bible records Lot offering up his daughters for rape, but nowhere does it say that God thought this was a good thing. It's recording a story, not teaching you that that is a good thing to do.
God killing the first-born children of Egypt was a punishment. Pharaoh had ten chances to stop that happening, and when he didn't it was his fault. You, of course, are going to have a problem with God being allowed to kill children as a punishment - why? God gave life, and God can take away life. Death is the punishment for sin - that was clearly specified already in Paradise, before the Fall.

'According to the new testament he said that old testament law was perfect.'
I would really like to see a reference to this. Through Jesus' death, He abolished the entire ceremonial law. The principles of the civil law He instituted remain until this day, although, of course, with the changing of times, punishments also changed. What I mean with the principles of the civil law is that, to give an example, in the OT, if a man's ox hurt someone, he had to pay for damages, but he was not really held responsible. If however, the ox was a vicious animal and had done something like that before, he had a lot more on his plate. It's the same today, except not with oxen. If your brakes fail, and you hurt someone, or crash a car, well, you have a little bit of trouble. But if you'd been told that your brakes were dangerous, and you needed to get them fixed but you didn't, then you're in a lot more trouble!

'You have chosen the parts of the bible that line up with your innate goodness.'
This I find almost laughable. Not because I don't believe Watchman is a good guy, but because I don't believe we have any innate goodness. Someone said in another debate that if there was a God who actually worked in this universe, we should be able to observe the effect. I think we can. The effect of God's presence, and his restraining, common grace is that we can live somewhat peacefully together. The only reason we are not all Hitlers, and Stalins, etc, is because of God's restraining grace. The only thing, is, of course, that because God is invisible, you can deny He exists and claim that it's just our 'innate goodness'. Well then, where was the innate goodness of Hitler, Stalin, etc.?

 
bookworm
Jul 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

Oh, yes, and I forgot to mention that the Jews aren't actually celebrating the slaughter of the Egyptians in the Passover feast, they're celebrating God's mercy in sparing them. That's why it's called Passover, not Slaughter Day, because God passed over those (Egyptians included) that had the blood on the doorposts, in accordance to His orders (and as a sign pointing towards Christ's blood which is the only thing that can save us from our sins).

 
bookworm
Jul 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: scarleta Show

I'll add to what I said before. Jesus said 'Blessed are the poor IN spirit'. You, as an athiest, are poor OF spirit. Your spirit is poor. Those who are poor IN spirit, are really rich OF spirit. That's the difference.

 
thevenerablerob
Jul 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: forrestgump Show

The Bible was inspired by God. Thus, every word was written through a scribe to exactly what God told them to write. One of the proofs of this inspiration is that the authors sometimes didn't even understand the meaning of what they were writing, thuogh they knew they were doing it.

Proofs of Godly inspiration:

The Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. The Bible is unique because it first claims divinity and then proves it. Yes, this could be considered as circular reasoning, but very few other books have claimed to be written by God Himself. Those that do did not stand the test of time or are of inferior quality.

One powerful stateemnt of inspiration, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." James 3:16

Another, "The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." 2 samuel 23:2

The phrase, thus saith the Lord is found 3,800 times in the Old testament alone.

Human writers realized that God was giving them the words.

The Judgement attached to adding or subtracting words of the Bible is severe.

Typically we accept the authorship of a reliable literature until proof arrises that would cause doubt. So should we not believe when God claims He wrote it, himself, through direct inspiration of scribes?

Also, Moses was literate, opposed to some beliefs. Cuneiform writing and hammurabi's Code existed around his time.

Also, history has shown that the Bible is the indestructible word of God. It was promised in the Bible and has been fulfilled, despite vain efforts by many. There are still more proofs, but I must run for the moment....




 
bookworm
Jul 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: scarleta Show

Sorry for confusing you with my second post. What I meant with poor OF (yes, it's probably not good grammar) was that their spirit was poor, thus they were poor of spirit. And yes,the way you interpreted my first post was basically what I meant.

 
bookworm
Jul 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: scarleta Show

It was hardly the religion's fault - it was the fault of the person for misinterpreting it. According to my name, you should be able to work out that I like reading, but in case you can't I'll say it: I like reading. Now if you would read that, and decide to go kill everyone who doesn't like reading because you honestly think that will make me happy, does that make it my fault? Of course not!

 
bookworm
Jul 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

1 Did Hitler say, if you don't do (something??), then I'll kill you to the Jews?
2 Did Hitler give the Jews a lot of warnings to show that he meant what he said?
3 And even if he did....did Hitler have any right whatsoever to command the Jews to do anything?

God told Pharaoh to let His people go. Pharaoh said no. God gave Moses a sign (turning his rod into a snake) to show that He was behind it, and that Moses wasn't speaking on his own behalf. Pharaoh's magicians did the same thing - but Moses' snake at theirs and also Moses could turn his back into a rod, they couldn't (especially not after they were eaten lol). Then we have God (through Moses) turning the Nile into blood. Pharaoh still said no. Okay, I know you know the story, so I won't go further. Get my point? There is a slight difference between Hitler and God, the main one being, too, that God is God, and since without Him we'd all be dead the next instant anyway, why should we say He's not allowed to kill people?

 
bookworm
Jul 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

Have you read Sam Harris' 'Letter to a Christian Nation'? If you have, to get both sides of the story, you should also read the reply, 'Letter from a Christian citizen' by Douglas Wilson.

 
bookworm
Jul 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

Shall I explain? If a branch is withered, or dead, it's gathered, and cast into the fire, and it's burned. If a man is not in Christ, on the Judgment Day, or when he dies, he will be cast into hell as the punishment for his sins and unbelief. Not so very hard. And yes, it probably was a favourite of the Inquisition - but guess what? If I was alive then, the Inquisition would have been burning me too! I'm Reformed; the Inquisition didn't like Reformed people. And even if it was my own denomination, it's hardly like I agree with what they did! We've already talked about this whole 'using the Bible to justify wrong actions'.
You know what's really scary? That in your belief in no God (or that man has complete control of his own destiny), there is no ground for saying that what the Inquisition did was wrong! As man, you're god, who can say that what you do is wrong? I know you don't think that way, but that IS what the consequences of your belief can be!

 
bookworm
Jul 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

Matthew what? I don't know what text you're referring to - if you're using it, you should know what it is. I could look it up, but what if it's a text you're interpreting that way, and I interpret differently? What if I can't find it at all? If you don't know the exact reference, then at least give me the context, or beginning, middle, end of book, etc...

 
bookworm
Jul 06, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: scarleta Show

I agree, it's not hard to see who the villain in that story is - the person who grossly misinterpreted what the person was trying to say. If someone teaches a child that he would go to paradise if he was a martyr, and so he decides to be a suicide bomber (or kill an abortion doctor), it's the person who taught him wrongly then that is at fault (although he is too, for not trying to find out the real answer), not the thing that was misinterpreted. You cannot blame a thing, or a book, or even a person for a misinterpretation of itself, all you can blame is the person who misinterprets it.

 
bookworm
Jul 09, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

So tell me where you get your standard of right or wrong from.

 
wwjd
Jul 16, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

I understand we come from different perspectives. I'm looking at the Bible with no contradictions, and your looking at it as though it's filled with flaws. But, please try to have an open mind about it, and don't just think automatically I'm wrong.

Now, Genesis 1 is an overall explanation of the earth. It ends with the sixth day. Chapter 2 begins with the statement that the heavens and the earth were completed. It later explains that God rested the seventh day. After verse 4, it begins explaining the creation of the garden. Verse 5 says "now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted...."(NASB). Notice it keeps on saying "of the field". In the next few verses it gives more details about how man was created on the sixth day. Then in verse 8, it starts explaining in detail how God created the Garden of Eden.

Really, chapter 2 is just giving more details of what happened on the sixth day. God created man (Adam) in his own image out of the dust of the earth, and breathed in him the breath of life. Then he created a garden for Adam and gave him a wife. From that garden he created each animal so that Adam could name them.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

atheism christianity debate god islam religion Abortion atheism atheist athiesm athiest BBC belief Beliefs bible buddhism catholic catholicism Christ christian christianity christians Christmas church Creation creationism death debate enlightenment ethics evil Evolution faith god heaven Hell hinduism Islam islamic jesus jewish judaism logic love morality mosque muslim opression peace philosophy politics Pope religion Religon Salvation satan Science scientology sex sin society supernatural terrorism Theology Truth VanCam violence war world