It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Contradictions in the bible

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Auggie
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


What kind of, and how much evidence are you looking for?

Oh he's not looking for evidence! That's the last thing he wants, and if God appeared before him and said "Hi", a-and-a would plug his ears and go "la la la la I can't hear you!"

Bishop Spong admitted in the foreword of one of his books that he specifically doesn't want to believe, he's rather have his independence. Time the more militant and visible ATS atheist campaigners did likewise.




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


So...you're blaming God for making "bad" children? Do you not think that parents and society enter into this equation somewhere along the line. What a cop out to blame God for such a thing! Two supposedly mature adults make the decision to bring a child into this world, no one forces them to do it, except in the case where some selfish, self centered man forces himself upon a woman. But that's a whole other issue.

Proof of Gods existence is everywhere, just look around you.

If anyone reading this post really wants to see what God will do when people turn to Him, look up on Google "The Azusa Street Revival" or "The Welsh Revival". Also read about the ministries of John G. Lake or Smith Wigglesworth. Of course, this will require a little effort on your part.

At the very end of the Bible, It says in Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

Notice, It says "Whoever desires". The problem is that few, desire....but if they do desire, they may take the water of life freely. Notice again, It says "freely", the price has already been paid.

God has made it so amazingly simple for us, even a caveman can do it.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Auggie


Hi Auggie -

As I mentioned, you would have to do your own research from the extant hand written manuscript copies of the ancient versions of the texts you consider to be 'the bible' - a book which did not even exist as a single collection between two covers until the 5th century AD at the earliest...

As for the so-called 'Old Testament' Hebrew Scriptures, the Dead Sea Scroll Time Capsules prove beyond any doubt that Jews in the 1st century did not 'have a closed canon of holy Scriptures that 'defiled the hands' when the caves were sealed up in June of 68 CE at the approach of the Roman invasion of Judaea following the 'disappearance' of the Emperor Nero-Caesar c. May-June 68 CE.

Post Roman 2nd Herodian Temple Destruction Rabinnic 'Jews' did not close their 'canon' of sacred books 'which defiled the hands' until after the socalled Council of Javneh (=Jamnia) in 90 CE, and they were still debating the 'canon' of the Hebrew scriptures as to 'what books defiled the hands, and in what version' as late as 138 CE when books such as e.g. Esther, Hezekiel, Daniel & Qoheleth ('Ecclesiastes') were still very much in Debate at the time.

So what I am saying (in case you did not understand my earlier post?) is that the earliest Nazorean 'Christians' did not have a 'bible' by any definition between two covers as a single collection of specificially named books, neither did they have a single 'authorised' edition of any of the books that later were voted in as 'canonical' centuries later.

So the 'Bible' did not even exist as you know it to-day in the book you claim to go by that name until well into the 'middle ages' - and had little to do with what the immediate followers of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (Gk. Iesous) considered to be 'holy scripture'.

Ergo...you cannot walk around claiming that the 'bible has no contradictions' (inherent to the text or otherwise !) unless you have a specific list of books which comprise that 'bible' that everyone agrees is the same and also unless you have a specific VERSION of those self-same books, which you cannot produce = obviously, since for the 'Old Testament' we have the proto-Masoretic Consonantal text used at say Wadi Murabb'at (c. 135 AD), and the Hebrew-Aramaic Vorlagen to the earlier LXX Greek Septuaginta translations out of Alexandria (proto LXX), dating from c. 250 BCE and all the variious and sundry 'textually contradictory' Hebrew-Aramaic Vorlagen (textual underlays) of the 'Hebrew Scriptures' (including the Testament of Moses/Jubilees and I Henoch and Sirach, among other books never later 'officially' voted into the Hebrew canon of 'scripture' by later Rebbes) i.e. the Hebrew-Aramaic text-families which were later used by Aquila, Theodotion and Symmmmachus (some of whose fragmentary source material in Hebrew and Aramaic dating from c. 300 BCE was actually discovered after November of 1946 among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran), and the socalled Samaritan Pentateuch (from c. 400 BCE), etc. etc.

Neither can you produce a single copy of the New Testament with its 5446 Greek manuscripts, no two of which are exactly alike.

In fact, as even a general-scholar (who writes for the masses, and sheeple like you) like Bart Ehrman has proved, the New Testament does not rest on any textual soundness, but arbitrary reconstructions of 'what must have been original wording...' according to the best-guesses of persons such as Aland or Nestle etal.

Most of whom are not dis-interested scholars by any stretch (despite some coherent erudition at times !) but are 'of the faith of believers in Christ' who (even subconsciously) choose 'readings' of mangled Greek texts to suit their own biases.

At any rate...you have some serious home-work to do, young man...so get crackin' as they say and take the necessary courses in paleo-Hebrew, Aramaic &Koine Greek so you will know what you are talking about.

Otherwise, you are just wasting your time and also mine (as well as other thinking persons on this threadlet) !



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Auggie
 



So...you're blaming God for making "bad" children?


I didn't blame anyone. And i don't believe in God, remember?

But if God DOES exist, this is what we have to assume if we are to believe the core doctrine of the abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam and Juduism)

Even if we disbelieve that the religions are true, and still believe in God, we have to assume that God has "willed" the Andromeda Gallaxy to collide into our own, This God has willed that above 98% of all species that existed become exinct, God has wiled that some people are born with defects.

You can always play the inferrence game, if Evolution negates intelligent designer, you just infer that the intelligent designer started the evolutionary engine.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Refute my arguments if you don't like them. Show me the overwelming evidence that i'm ignorant of.

In other words, stop being so hostile, i've done nothing but construct arguments, i've never attacked you as an individual.

If my arguments are so pathetic, so easy to refute and the evidence is so overwheling; please do take over and offer your incite. But stop the personal attacks, you're not getting anywhere.

I'm sorry that you resent me because of my disbelief, but you really have to grow up and accept that we are on a forum, people have different beliefs to you.


Time the more militant and visible ATS atheist campaigners did likewise.


"Militant Atheists" I love that expression:-

God damn all those Atheists suicide bombers who are blowing themselves up in the name of....erm....Atheism.

God damn all those Atheists telling people they will go to hell if they don't surrender their beliefs systems.

God damn all those obvious Atheists preaching the end is nye and to convert to Atheism.

God damn all those Atheist militias in the middle-east.

Yeah, "militant" Atheist consists of people who have a love for Philosophy, and concern about the efffects of organised religion, and religious prejudice and dogma.

Many Atheists actually WANT God to exist, but still can't bring themselves to believe it.
edit on 9/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


Sigismundus,

Believe me, I do understand what you are saying, I really do. I studied a lot of these things years ago in my search for what is true. I realize that what we call the Bible has only been available as one book for about 500 years. I realize that the early Christians did not have what we call The New Testament, because The New Testament is about them. It is a collection of writings written by men who were inspired by God to write what they wrote, the same with what we call The Old Testament.

The big problem here is that you and many others are approaching this issue as unbelievers in Jesus Christ. You will always, always try to understand these things intellectually, without faith, and therefore will never be able to understand until you come to Christ.

I realize quoting Scripture as proof that what I say is true, is probably meaningless to you, but I will do so anyway in hopes that you will read it and possibly begin to understand.

To save on space, I will list only certain scripture from chapters 3 & 4 in 2 Corinthians, but suggest you read both chapters.

2 Corinthians Chapter 3

12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech--
13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away.
14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.
15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.
16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Notice verse 14, ..."their minds were blinded".., meaning, they could not understand. Just like today, anyone can read The Old testament or The New Testament, but their understanding of it is veiled (hidden) until they turn to the Lord.

2 Corinthians Chapter 4

3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Notice verse 4..."whose minds the god of this age has blinded". Who is this god of this age, with a lower case g, that blinds the minds of those who do not believe? I will let John Wesley answer that.

Verse 4. The God of this world - What a sublime and horrible description of Satan! He is indeed the God of all that believe not, and works in them with inconceivable energy. Hath blinded - Not only veiled, the eye of their understanding. Illumination - Is properly the reflection or propagation of light, from those who are already enlightened, to others. Who is the image of God - Hence also we may understand how great is the glory of Christ. He that sees the Son, sees the Father in the face of Christ. The Son exactly exhibits the Father to us.

Why is it that Saul/Paul, being a Pharisee, which in today's world would be considered super religious, did not understand who Jesus Christ was? He should have known, he knew what the ancient writings said, he knew that the Messiah was to come.

Because he was blinded, he didn't understand, just as he, himself, later wrote in 2 Corinthians 3:14. Thankfully, he was man enough to admit it.

It was not until Saul met Jesus Christ on the Damascus road that everything began to change for him, he began to understand, his spiritual eyes were opened. He went from persecuting the Christians to being a blessing to them.

The Book we have now which we call the Bible, is a collection of writings, from different periods of time, penned by men who were inspired by Almighty God to write what they wrote, for our benefit. There are no contradictions.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Auggie
The big problem here is that you and many others are approaching this issue as unbelievers in Jesus Christ. You will always, always try to understand these things intellectually, without faith, and therefore will never be able to understand until you come to Christ.




QUESTION: I'm at a loss.

Why would I believe something that's been shown by factual writings to be a created myth. Humans expounding on factual events - - combining them inaccurately with embellishments to create a mystical figure?

Somewhere/time in our beginning - - because man could not explain/understand something - - he created an explanation - - a mystical omnipotent being.

We have been assimilated and conditioned to believe this from birth - - in most of the world.

In clear thinking - - it is but a creation of a Creator - - a man made myth - - to answer questions man lacks knowledge of.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Auggie
 


You're apologetics is weak to say the least; answering easy questions must be hard. Fine, I'll hold your hand and SHOW you how they are different. I'll make the list for you.

Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5 - (the ones Moses broke) :

1. No other Gods
2. No graven images, or worshipping them
3. No taking the Lord’s Name in Vain
4. Remember the Sabbath Day
5. Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother
6. Thou Shalt Not Kill
7. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery
8. Thou Shalt Not Steal
9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness
10. Thou Shalt Not Covet

Exodus 34:14-28 ("the words that were on the first" Exodus 34:1) :

1. Thou Shalt Worship God and Him Only
2. Thou Shalt Not Make Molten Gods
3. Thou Shalt Keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread
4. The first born or all things is mine.
5. Six Days Shall You work, but on the Seventh thou shalt rest
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, and three times a year your men children shall appear before the Lord.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left unto the morning.
9. The first-fruits of thy land shall you bring unto the house of the Lord Thy God.
10. Thou shalt not boil a kid (baby goat) in his mother’s milk.


Exodus 34:27-28
And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
What about the Ten commandments from: Solon the Athenian. Solon was born, we believe, around 638 B.C.E., and lived until approximately 558, but the date in his life of greatest importance to us is the year he was elected to create a constitution for Athens, 594 B.C.E. How important is this man? Let's examine what we owe to him, in comparison with the legendary author (or at last, in legend, the transmitter) of the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments. Solon is the founder of Western democracy and the first man in history to articulate ideas of equal rights for all citizens, and though he did not go nearly as far in the latter as we have come today, Moses can claim no connection to either. Solon was the first man in Western history to publicly record a civil constitution in writing. No one in Hebrew history did anything of the kind, least of all Moses. Solon advocated not only the right but even the duty of every citizen to bear arms in the defense of the state--to him we owe the 2nd Amendment. Nothing about that is to be found in the Ten Commandments of Moses. Solon set up laws defending the principles and importance of private property, state encouragement of economic trades and crafts, and a strong middle class--the ideals which lie at the heart of American prosperity, yet which cannot be credited at all to Moses.

Let us now turn to the Ten Commandments of Solon (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 1.60), which run as follows:

1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.

Compared to: The Ten Commandments of Moses (Deuteronomy 5:6-21, Exodus 20:3-16) run as follows--and I am even going out of my way to leave out the bounteous and blatantly-religious language that actually surrounds them in the original text, as well as the tacit approval of slavery present in the fourth commandment, none of which is even remotely suitable for political endorsement by a free republic:

1. Have no other gods before me [the God of the Hebrews].
2. Make no images of anything in heaven, earth or the sea, and do not worship or labor for them.
3. Do not vainly use the name of your God [the God of the Hebrews].
4. Do no work on the seventh day of the week.
5. Honor your parents.
6. Do not kill.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not give false testimony against another.
10. Do not desire another's wife or anything that belongs to another.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Auggie

Hi Auggie -

Basing an entire belief-system or Weltanschauung on ancient badly copied contradictory manuscripts is a very dangerous business.

(PLEASE read Bart Ehrman's books to get up to speed (generally) since he writes for the 'average layman' in 'plain English' and not for other scholars - since I do realise that not everybody in the world can actually read and understand Koine Greek and paleoHebrew themeselves - and it is not entirely your fault you cannot read the texts for yourself and THEN decide what is what...)

Please think hard about what you write on these posts.

You havee to understandd that there was no single Christianity in the 1st century CE but several 'different Christianities' - especially evident were the Nazorean Christians ('the Ebionim' aka the Poor Ones) whose Meqaberim ('overseers' or 'Bishops' from the Greek: EPI ='over' and SKOPOI - 'watcher' ) all were chosen from the blood Lineage (like 'Iesous') of the exiled House of David.

Then there were various Gnostic pagans that became 'Christianised' e.g. the Nag Hammadi sects; then there were the Pauline Churches who preached a Torah Hating, Circumision Hating and Kashrut Hating doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone - which was in CONTRADICTION to the tenets of the Nazorean Ebionites whose tenets held to a Salvation by Works (Ma'aseh '=works' , or Mitzvot ='torah commandments') see the Greek Epistle of James ('Faith without Ma'aseh is DEAD).

All these various 'Christianities' in the first 4 centuries of the Common Era abssolutely hated each other and anathemetised each other on a regular basis.(Shao'l of Tarsus i.e. 'Paul' actually wished that the Nazorean Ebionim would go & 'all castrate themselves' !)

You did know, didn;'t you, that this Shaoul of Tarsus (aka Paul) never ever ever ever ever once physically 'met' R. Yehsohua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (Gk. Iesous) ' in the flesh' but only claimed to havee heard a voice or saw a light etc. 'in dreams and visions' and that his self-styled label as "Apostolos" was basically without merit.

Moreover, you did know, didn't you, that this Shaou'l Paulos personage fought bitterly with those who actually DID know R. Yehoshua andd followed him in the flesh - or were blood related to him as in the case of his brother(e.g. 'those so-called Pillars of the Church !' as he styled "Peter' = Shimeon bar Yonah ha-Kephah and 'James' the 'Lord's Brother' (you did know, I hope, that JAMES was NOT one of the original 12 disciples, but took over the Ebionim after his brother's Execution for Armed Sedition against Rome ? ) aka R. Yakkov bar Yosef, heads of the 'Torah-Abiding, Kashrut-Eating, Circumcising 'Ebionim' ('the Poor') aka The Nazoreans in Jerusalem before it fell to the Romans in 70 CE)

Read Paul's vitriolic language in Galatians chapter 2 against both 'Peter' and 'James' and you can even read the mishmash of half-truths in Acts chapter 15 - so you can see a glimpse of the kinds of Tension that existed between these two early Christian splinter groups who hated each other and anathemetised each other.

Pauline 'Christian' gentile-loving churches WERE NOT the SAME as the Nazorean Ebionite Messianists headed up by the blood brother of 'Iesous' (the Ebionite Nazoreans insisted in Circumcision & Kashrut the same way R. Yehoshua did...unlike 'Saul of Tarsus' who allowed gentiles into his fold and told them the Torah was no longer important - i.e. salvation by faith alone.

Even the anonymous ('Yohanon') Ebionite-Nazorean writer of the so-called 'Book of Revelation' called Paul's gentile loving Torah hating 'Churches' and their followers 'persons who style themselves Judaeans but are NOT Judaeans, but are of the Synagogue of Satan...'

So don't think you can start quoting the mangled Greek copies of the 'letters' of Shaol of Tarsus to his own Ebionite Hating Gentile Loving (i.e. heretical) Churches (Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, now in present day TURKEY) as anything approaching authority as 'holy scripture' to back up your jejune belief system.

Anyone who claims that there are NO contradictions in the 'bible', is either

l. Woefully ignorant of the facts of the actual present and verifiablee Textual MSS situation as it exists in the paleoHebrew, Aramaic and Greek ...

2. Or a pathological Liar.

I sure hope you are merely an ignorant victim of Number 1 and not one of the Number 2 above !



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
What I've concluded of the bible is when you take something literally it was supposed to be figuratively and vice versa. While it may not all be hogwash, much of it is; or simply stolen from other texts anyway.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee


Why would I believe something that's been shown by factual writings to be a created myth.

Annee, what factual writings?
Vicky



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
My thoughts on the subject are
1) there are contradictions in the Bible
2) this is largely irrelevant
3) debates on the subject usually lead nowhere

Some examples include Jesus cursing the fig tree (in one passage it withers immediately and in another it is found to be withered the next day) and the two thieves at the crucifixion (in one passage they both mock Jesus, in another one mocks him and the other rebukes the first thief).

Clearly, these differences only matter if you take the fundamentalist view that everything in the Bible must be 100% factually and historically true. Without this requirement, what you have are multiple passages with minor variations that essentially relate the same stories. Even in cases of variations, these may have been employed to introduce additional subtle themes into a particular story.(There may be other debates about supposed contradictions that seem to suggest opposing philosophical messages. Here I'm simply referring to circumstantial contradictions relating to factual accuracy.)

The problem with debating this is that someone who presupposes factual and historical inerrancy will simply come up with an ad hoc explanation to explain away the contradiction. For example, assume I follow a hypothetical religion based on a guy named "Bob". One of the tenets of my religion is that Bob was a perfect driver and he never got into an accident. However, one of the passages in my holy book says, "Bob was driving to work one day. He got into an accident and was rushed to the hospital."

The passage is straightforward and seems to contradict one of the tenets of my religion. However, presupposing the inerrancy of my holy book, I simply say that the kind of accident is not specified. I further speculate that Bob may have spilled coffee on himself while driving (an accident) and burned himself, necessitating a visit to the hospital.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Superbus
 



3) debates on the subject usually lead nowhere



I have just witnessed a rout – tonight’s Intelligence Squared debate. It considered the motion “The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world”. Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry, opposing the motion, comprehensively trounced Archbishop Onaiyekan (of Abuja, Nigeria) and Ann Widdecombe, who spoke for it. The archbishop in particular was hopeless.

The voting gives a good idea of how it went. Before the debate, for the motion: 678. Against: 1102. Don’t know: 346. This is how it changed after the debate. For: 268. Against: 1876. Don’t know: 34. In other words, after hearing the speakers, the number of people in the audience who opposed the motion increased by 774. My friend Simon, who’s a season ticket holder, said it was the most decisive swing against a motion that he could remember.
Intelligence Squared Debate considering the motion “The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world” (2009)
blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

I think debate is critical to expanding people's thoughts and positions on such a profound issue.
edit on 12/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Auggie
 



What do you mean "making us pay for it"!


Well Jesus is a homo-sapien, isn't he?.....I guess that can't be proved either, let's assume he is.


You or I didn't pay for anything, Jesus Christ did!


I may be wrong, but i think dbates was reffering to "us" as a collective species, here on Earth, in the Milky Way gallaxy, and thus Jesus too.


HE paid the price for your and my sin, everyone's sin.


So Christianity claims.

I don't even deny the posssibility that a man named Jesus MAY have existed, and may have been a martyr for that age, as was Ghandi, as was Martin Luther King, as was many other humanitarians throughout history. I don't think there's any desire to start "Ghandism" though. Perhaps many years later like the people who formed the biblical doctrines of Christianity.


Almighty God has made it about as simple as he possibly could for an unbelieving world, all you need to do is believe in His Son, Jesus Christ.


If you saw a man tommorow, who offered some kind words, healed the sick, turned water into wine, and was crucified by the state for blasphomy; would you believe he was sent by God?

Do you think that would warrant holy praise and ritual for the next 2000 years?
edit on 8/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


You forgot walked on water and came back from the dead. But I guess those are just minor details you chose to leave out



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dezero
You forgot walked on water and came back from the dead. But I guess those are just minor details you chose to leave out


Uhhhhhhhhhhhh - - -



Sorry - - I do try to be respectful. But . . . . .



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Superbus
 



3) debates on the subject usually lead nowhere



I have just witnessed a rout – tonight’s Intelligence Squared debate. It considered the motion “The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world”. Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry, opposing the motion, comprehensively trounced Archbishop Onaiyekan (of Abuja, Nigeria) and Ann Widdecombe, who spoke for it. The archbishop in particular was hopeless.

The voting gives a good idea of how it went. Before the debate, for the motion: 678. Against: 1102. Don’t know: 346. This is how it changed after the debate. For: 268. Against: 1876. Don’t know: 34. In other words, after hearing the speakers, the number of people in the audience who opposed the motion increased by 774. My friend Simon, who’s a season ticket holder, said it was the most decisive swing against a motion that he could remember.
Intelligence Squared Debate considering the motion “The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world” (2009)
blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

I think debate is critical to expanding people's thoughts and positions on such a profound issue.
edit on 12/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


The debate you're referencing concerned the motion "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world." That is different from the position that the Bible is both infallible and a literal historical record. One could believe that the Catholic church is a force for good without holding a literalist view of the Bible.
edit on 13-6-2011 by Superbus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Are we talkin about the same god who said



Leviticus 27:28-29
But nothing that a person owns and devotes to the LORD—whether a human being or an animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; they are to be put to death.


The same God who accepts human sacrifice? I mean of course christianity is based on human sacrifice.

But is this the same God who then claims the thought of human sacrifice never entered his mind? as if he hadn't said it in Leviticus?



Jeremiah 19v5
They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.

Deuteronomy 12:31
You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods


why would anyone believe in a god who says something and then lies about it, claiming the concept of human sacrifice had never entered his mind? The same god that killed and sacrificed his own son for a pleasing aroma and for sins of people?

This should just set alarms to go off, christianity is based on a lie

edit on 13-6-2011 by LiveEquation because: christ



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by LiveEquation

Hi Live -

I think it is more of an error-laden scribal MSS textual issue (i.e. various & sundry malicious / agenda-laden 'scribes' over the centuries who were always deliberately making stuff up in the Texts they were copying out by hand (no photo-copiers back then - or even basic copyright Laws !) often sticking their own 'scribal additions' or deliberate textual changes first in the margins of the garbled texts they worked from - which eventually get re-copied by hand again and again over time 'into the main body of the texts' having their garbagy (i.e. eventually textually-contradictory) content & Theologies added to (or subtracted- from) what eventually came to be known as the 'Bible' over time) - as the NT writer of the 'Book of Revelation' (whoever he was) states at the end of his book,

'Let he who adds or subtracts any words to this Book endure the pains of the Plagues contained within it...' !

Or as Jeremiah (see Jer. 8:8 ff) used to call these malicious tricksters 'The Lying Pen of the Scribes...!!!'

Which just goes to show you how very Dangerous it is when one places any kind of 'blind Faith' in hand-copied texts (especially the older ones, which went through a complex process in several stages of copying & re-copying ever-changing 'holy' scriptural texts over the centuries...just look at the Dead Sea Scroll mess (dating from BCE 300 to AD 68) , when compared (letter for letter) to the much later 'authorised' (i.e. 'cleaned up') Masoretic vowells added text of the Hebrew 'canon' from the year c. 1000 CE - more than 20 percent diffference between all these contradictory text families, e.g. the Masoretic compared with the Samaritan Pentatech, and with the Dead Sea Scroll fragments, and re-compared closely to the Hebrew-Aramaic Vorlagen texutal source underlays to the Greek LXX families and those Hebrew-Aramaic textual underlays to the Greek versions of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus etal ..)

These facts alone should be A Major Caution to any 'faith based' person who is really serious about determining the extact contents of what he was told to believe as 'holy scripture' - and (curiously perhaps !) those very persons who claim to 'believe every word of the Bible', are the very same people who have NOT taken the time nor the effort to read (in the original languages !) all the messy and ccontradictory supposedly 'holy' texts as they have come down to us via many lying pens of many lying scribes over the millenia...and compare them word for word

If they did, these persons would be singing another tune altogether, as Dr Bart Ehrman did when he came in face to face contact with the ancient copies and eventually threw up his hands in disgust at all the gullibility of 'faith based persons'....who absolutely love to bark 'divine' orders to thinking people on this planet !!


edit on 13-6-2011 by Sigismundus because: myy stuttterrringggg computtteerrrr keeyboardddd makes for some reeeeeally innnnterresting speellling errorrrrs



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I've often wondered if transcriptions of ancient writings was done by Atheists - - if they would read the same.

If you believe God is the creator of all things - - and you transcribe ancient writings - - wouldn't you automatically interpret what you may not fully understand using your own belief as a guide to what is meant?




top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join