The Biggest Contradiction Of The Bible (imo) (souls, myth, atheist)

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Rider's Pantheon

Any law making it a capitol crime to work on some Sabbath dreamed up by a murderer is insane. Much less anyone deem it holy and the works of God. Jesus was a victim of those laws. There is nothing holy about torchuring and murdering thousands of people because they decided to worship God in their own peaceful, creative way(golden calf worshippers). The Bible is a violation of basic human rights. It is a crime against humanity to enact such laws. For anyone to be thankful of these laws and for the brutal murder of ANYONE who is victimized by them is borderline psychopathic.

I get the sense that you just want to anachronistically condemn a work created in the Ancient World by applying modern sensibilities to it. Is that your overarching goal here?

A few things, however: A: Jesus was not the victim of any law contained in the Torah. He was executed by the Romans under Pontius Pilate for being a seditionist against Rome. Only Fundamentalists believe that the Jews had anything at all to do with Jesus' death.

B: The golden calf episode is now recognized as a political and theological critique of the much later kingdom of Northern Israel and their establishment of bull iconography to represent Yahweh, when they established two worship centers with bulls. The story was "backwritten" into a history of Israel (Exodus) to condemn then then current events of the time in Northern Israel. That the very familiar iconography of Yahweh as a Bull (much as Bull El was a common term) - a virile and powerful animal - is reduced to a calf, is another indication of the religiously motivated nature of the text.

C: You refer to Moses as a murderer as if he actually existed and was actually responsible for the Torah. These are very old-fashioned and Fundamentalist views long ago disproven by Baruch Spinoza about 600 years ago. In addition, I think you've confused the definition of "murderer" with someone who administers the Law - no matter how harsh we believe it to be NOW, today.


In short, these things never happened: there never was a golden calf episode historically; there never was a historical issue where the Jews condemned Jesus; Moses probably did not exist and he certainly did not write the Torah, if he did: and again - only Fundamentalists will claim this is so. For citations to support the above, see virtually ANY modern scholarly treatment of the subjects.

So I am wondering in all seriousness: why are you adopting extremely uninformed Fundamentalist views of the Bible to critique it, and ignoring what we actually know about the text from a TRUE critical perspective? I don't see the sense in thinking like a gullible Fundamentalist to make your point? Your being just as bad as them. If you truly want to critique something, at least get to know it a little better and show that you're a little better informed than your average Bible-thumping Fundamentalist. This is why Biblical Scholars are dedicated to a little something called Biblical Criticism....

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by whoppers

I think I disagree with you on this, and would like to see a source for that information.

Honestly, my "sources" come from almost a decade of arguing against right-wingers and militant Christians. There is a lot of stuff out there, articles I've collected, websites I've visited, anecdotal stories, and my own personal experiences living abroad.

In truth, though, I really don't need to get into the statistical details because there is one immutable proof of my words that I've already mentioned:

We are the ONLY industrialized nation that does not have nationalized health care. We are the ONLY country where you need a crap-ton of money to stay healthy. Other nations, you essentially make an appointment, you see a doctor, and you go home. No insurance forms, no having to show your insurance card like some kind of Gestapo organization (Papers, please!), and no worrying that if you get seriously ill, it will bankrupt the entire family.

For Americans, it's all about money. How much you make determines your worthiness for health care; there is no intrinsic value in a human life. Only the labor we produce has any merit - as if we were machines. If we're disabled and can't produce, tough luck. If you're elderly and can't produce, too bad. If you're unemployed and not producing, you have no value.

A lot of this comes from the Puritan-Protestant work ethic. "Idle hands are the devil's workshop" as the saying goes. If you're not working (i.e. disabled or elderly) then you're a parasite on society, a taker, a leech, utterly worthless except to those who love you enough to bother keeping you alive. But society shouldn't do it ... no way. That comes directly from latent Puritanical beliefs.

But as I said, the proof is in the fact that we do not have nationalized health care. Opposition to even a facsimile of nationalized health care has been met with almost religious-like zealotry. On this very forum I have seen people write, "I'd rather see this country in ruins than to have the nation liberals want!"

I don't need to link a source because the fact that we don't have it speaks for itself. The fact that the right-wingers who represent Big Religion rabidly oppose the Affordable Care Act speaks for itself. A lot of this thinking comes from the Cold War when "God" was introduced everywhere - on our money, in our Pledge, and in our military. This was in direct opposition to the Soviet Union which was regarded as "atheistic" and "Godless." As a result, enough Americans oppose anything "socialistic" no matter how much certain programs would benefit from a little socialism.

And therefore, we do not have nationalized health care - with religion playing a big role in keeping it that way. That and the love of money. The worship of Mammon.

You don't have to make the case that Judao-Christianity had some positive effects on Western Civilzation. Sure it has. But I'm now beginning to wonder if religion isn't like eating too much candy. Yeah, it tasted really good for awhile, but now it's just making us sick.

The major problem I see with Christianity is the 3,000 years' worth of Hebrew baggage trailing along behind the New Testament. I remember some folks in my neighborhood always handing out those little Bibles, and they were always the New Testament and ONLY the New Testament. That's what Christianity should be.

It should be Christianity ... not Judao-Christianity. As long as people can flip back to the Old Testament and pick verses from Leviticus and Deuteronomy and others to impose upon the will of society entire, religion will never have a warm place in my heart.

Originally Posted by whoppers

I said it was "easy" to apply modern ethical standards to an ancient text and condemn it - I wasn't talking about the much, MUCH later instance of American Slavery. (for instance, I've read a supposed objective book on the history of ancient Athens, and the author starts from the position that Democracy is the best form of Government so Athens was awesome, but condemns them for their treatment of of women and their stance on slavery. This isn't scientific history, this is personal bias intruding to an extreme degree and the author's bad habit of applying modern ethical standards to an ancient people, which is anachronism at it's finest!). I've already pointed out early in the thread that the Civil War was basically a war fought over two separate groups' interpretation of the Bible (and because of the multivocal nature of the Biblical text, they both had proper interpretations - though I do disagree with the South's), so I'm well aware of the lasting influence that the Bible has had on American Slavery, but also aware of the Bible's influence on the abolition of slavery and the Freedom Movement in general. As I pointed out above, critics of religion are fond of focusing on the negative, since this suits their agenda rather well. And with that said, slavery didn't exactly get a boost from the Bible. It has been far more prevalent in countries that lacked the Bible's influence than within one, which is exactly why I urged some posters to do a little more research on slavery in general, and especially in the ANE - the context in which the Bible' law-codes arose.

If God had simply forbidden slavery from the outset, there would be no question what the Bible said and 600,000 Americans wouldn't have had to die over a war of interpretation.

This is why people such as myself tend to take a dim view of the Bible. Too many people see it as the Word of God and thus everything in it is true - including the fact that slavery is condoned. Even now, there is the ongoing issue of gay rights, an isssue largely produced by preconceived bigotry bolstered and justified by the Bible. The ability for people to go back to the Old Testament and bring those ancient rules into modern times is causing a lot of strife. Not just for gays, but also for people who do not want the Bible to rule over them as codified law.

Originally Posted by whoppers

IThe danger is not in having the verses in the Bible - we cannot censor or edit the past. What we can do is educate people to have a better Biblical literacy so they can realize that the Bible is not the Word of God and should not emulated.

Sure, I completely agree. But is there reason to be optimistic about the outcome? I don't think there is. Religion is a tough nut to crack because of its absolutism and certainty. It is for the same reason why I often tell my liberal friends that you cannot negotiated with Al-Qaeda because, where religion is concerned, there is nothing to negotiate. People will not compromise their religious beliefs the way they'll compromise over territory, resources, treasure, and trade agreements.

Trying to convince people that the Bible is just a book is an uphill battle that I'm not optimistic of winning - not without religion fading out altogether.

[look3467]

Any law making it a capitol crime to work on some Sabbath dreamed up by a murderer is insane. Much less anyone deem it holy and the works of God. Jesus was a victim of those laws. There is nothing holy about torchuring and murdering thousands of people because they decided to worship God in their own peaceful, creative way(golden calf worshippers). The Bible is a violation of basic human rights. It is a crime against humanity to enact such laws. For anyone to be thankful of these laws and for the brutal murder of ANYONE who is victimized by them is borderline psychopathic. This "sacrifice" you speak of doesn't make sense to me. If you wanted to express eternal guidance and compassion, all you have to do is explain it. You don't need to spill innocent blood. The NT is an example of a truly senseless murder of an innocent man. There is no need for it. You could say the words "I love you after you die, and clear into your rebirth". Mission accomplished. No senseless murders needed. No crimes against humanity performed by a vengeful, jealous immoral "God" of terrorism needed.>>>Rider's Pantheon

You definitely are given the right to believe as you do.I mean, after all, that is what being a separate god means.
You are your own god in that you can choose to believe in a God of mercy or wrath.

That was/is understood by God, if you can believe that.

In that condition you and I, though we would strive to do all things right, to try to live up to the full weight of the Ten Commandments, would still fall short of what would be needed to become one with God again.

In other words,it is an impossibility for any human being, as created, to have the power over its own condition to save itself from eternal none existence, once lived and died.

Without the power of the creator, as a being such as ours, come to us and deliver us out of the condition we were created in, mankind is hopeless.

That being is Jesus. He overcame all of it for us.

Without that scenario being the main substance of what all God is, as I just explained, all stories in the bible are open to speculation and judgment of God goodness.

Blessings, AJ

[Rider's Pantheon]

Originally Posted by whoppers

I get the sense that you just want to anachronistically condemn a work created in the Ancient World by applying modern sensibilities to it. Is that your overarching goal here?

A few things, however: A: Jesus was not the victim of any law contained in the Torah. He was executed by the Romans under Pontius Pilate for being a seditionist against Rome. Only Fundamentalists believe that the Jews had anything at all to do with Jesus' death.

B: The golden calf episode is now recognized as a political and theological critique of the much later kingdom of Northern Israel and their establishment of bull iconography to represent Yahweh, when they established two worship centers with bulls. The story was "backwritten" into a history of Israel (Exodus) to condemn then then current events of the time in Northern Israel. That the very familiar iconography of Yahweh as a Bull (much as Bull El was a common term) - a virile and powerful animal - is reduced to a calf, is another indication of the religiously motivated nature of the text.

C: You refer to Moses as a murderer as if he actually existed and was actually responsible for the Torah. These are very old-fashioned and Fundamentalist views long ago disproven by Baruch Spinoza about 600 years ago. In addition, I think you've confused the definition of "murderer" with someone who administers the Law - no matter how harsh we believe it to be NOW, today.


In short, these things never happened: there never was a golden calf episode historically; there never was a historical issue where the Jews condemned Jesus; Moses probably did not exist and he certainly did not write the Torah, if he did: and again - only Fundamentalists will claim this is so. For citations to support the above, see virtually ANY modern scholarly treatment of the subjects.

So I am wondering in all seriousness: why are you adopting extremely uninformed Fundamentalist views of the Bible to critique it, and ignoring what we actually know about the text from a TRUE critical perspective? I don't see the sense in thinking like a gullible Fundamentalist to make your point? Your being just as bad as them. If you truly want to critique something, at least get to know it a little better and show that you're a little better informed than your average Bible-thumping Fundamentalist. This is why Biblical Scholars are dedicated to a little something called Biblical Criticism....

The Pharisees wanted Jesus to die for working on the Sabbath. Moses had a man killed for working on the Sabbath. Plus Jesus taught of God in a way that contradicted Moses. Also a capitol crime. The Bible sanctions this behavior. Jesus said "My God, why has thou forsaken me?" YHWH INDEED forsaken him and had made Jesus an example! The Bible can be used to sanction ALL KINDS of horrible atrocities. Killing anyone for peacefully erecting a statue and worshipping it is a crime against humanity. Having a man publically murdered for defiantly picking up sticks on Moses's Sabbath is an act of terrorism. That is what the Bible teaches.

I haven't argued weather the characters in the Bible are real, or weather the events happened or not. I am judging the characters that are in the Bible, and how they act morally.

[Rider's Pantheon]

Originally Posted by look3467

You definitely are given the right to believe as you do.I mean, after all, that is what being a separate god means.
You are your own god in that you can choose to believe in a God of mercy or wrath.

That was/is understood by God, if you can believe that.

In that condition you and I, though we would strive to do all things right, to try to live up to the full weight of the Ten Commandments, would still fall short of what would be needed to become one with God again.

In other words,it is an impossibility for any human being, as created, to have the power over its own condition to save itself from eternal none existence, once lived and died.

Without the power of the creator, as a being such as ours, come to us and deliver us out of the condition we were created in, mankind is hopeless.

That being is Jesus. He overcame all of it for us.

Without that scenario being the main substance of what all God is, as I just explained, all stories in the bible are open to speculation and judgment of God goodness.

Blessings, AJ

I think many of the ten commandments are flat out evil.

You are so wrong about humans being unable to achieve life eternal it's stunning. Buddha's compassion is such that, if you can contemplate it, you will receive eternal life. All you need to do to receive eternal life is to have faith in, and live the philosophy that, throughout one's lifetime, a person goes though many different kinds of spiritual deaths and rebirths, in preparation for the ultimate death-to-life. Buddha supplies guidance and compassion for all who traverse though the Bardo! His love is there for us! Far eastern philosophers have achieved life eternal eons before the story of Jesus. Ancient Egypt, Hindus, Buddhists...to name a few...And they do not require the spilling of blood, or the tearing of flesh. It is FREE! Free love. Free ETERNAL love! People of philosophy have faith in the idea of life eternal, without the need for any innocent person to die! If you need for an innocent person to be torchured to death to receive life eternal, then You lack faith!

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Rider's Pantheon

I think many of the ten commandments are flat out evil.

You are so wrong about humans being unable to achieve life eternal it's stunning. Buddha's compassion is such that, if you can contemplate it, you will receive eternal life. All you need to do to receive eternal life is to have faith in, and live the philosophy that, throughout one's lifetime, a person goes though many different kinds of spiritual deaths and rebirths, in preparation for the ultimate death-to-life. Buddha supplies guidance and compassion for all who traverse though the Bardo! His love is there for us! Far eastern philosophers have achieved life eternal eons before the story of Jesus. Ancient Egypt, Hindus, Buddhists...to name a few...And they do not require the spilling of blood, or the tearing of flesh. It is FREE! Free love. Free ETERNAL love! People of philosophy have faith in the idea of life eternal, without the need for any innocent person to die! If you need for an innocent person to be torchured to death to receive life eternal, then You lack faith!

First, the ten commandments were for believers in the monotheistic Jewish God. Second, which ones of those commandments do you feel are "flat out evil?" And how do you come to that conclusion?

Lastly, a primary difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that Buddhism believes an individual can pull himself up by his own bootstraps. Christianity believes that God as Originator of Man is the only One Who can save man. Not arguing the efficacy of either faith--but the fundamental difference.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Rider's Pantheon

The Pharisees wanted Jesus to die for working on the Sabbath. Moses had a man killed for working on the Sabbath. Plus Jesus taught of God in a way that contradicted Moses. Also a capitol crime. The Bible sanctions this behavior. Jesus said "My God, why has thou forsaken me?" YHWH INDEED forsaken him and had made Jesus an example! The Bible can be used to sanction ALL KINDS of horrible atrocities. Killing anyone for peacefully erecting a statue and worshipping it is a crime against humanity. Having a man publically murdered for defiantly picking up sticks on Moses's Sabbath is an act of terrorism. That is what the Bible teaches.

I haven't argued weather the characters in the Bible are real, or weather the events happened or not. I am judging the characters that are in the Bible, and how they act morally.

Well I certainly wouldn't claim that many of our most beloved characters were moral exemplars to be emulated! Many conservative Jewish and Christian interpreters might argue this, but the Bible itself makes no attempt to absolve these characters of their own character (pun intended heh heh). Sure - there are examples of whitewashing of certain individuals going on (David's character, for example, in both Samuel and Chronicles) but from this very act we can tell that there was a reason the authors engaged in this rewriting.

But again - Jesus was killed by the Romans. End of story.

And again - you are applying modern morals to ancient characters. What earthly good does this do? It's very anachronistic. I've stated this several times, and have yet to see you address it meaningfully. In fact, you haven't really deal with many of the important issues I've raised. You keep claiming that Moses was a murderer - even though it's been demonstrated differently. Okay - in ONE case he was the definition of a murderer: when he slew the Egyptian that was beating the Israelite slaves in Egypt, and he was forced to flee Egypt for this crime. But should we condemn him for this, really? Apart from that, where else does Moses murder (and like I've said before, enforcing a law is not murder - not matter how much you disagree with that law!)?

[Rider's Pantheon]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

First, the ten commandments were for believers in the monotheistic Jewish God. Second, which ones of those commandments do you feel are "flat out evil?" And how do you come to that conclusion?

Lastly, a primary difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that Buddhism believes an individual can pull himself up by his own bootstraps. Christianity believes that God as Originator of Man is the only One Who can save man. Not arguing the efficacy of either faith--but the fundamental difference.

Any commandment that makes demands like "no God before me, for I am a jealous, control freak with abandonment issues" kind of demands. The 2nd commandment is absolutely ridiculous. Erecting statues or having creativity means the death sentence. It is clearly anti Egyptian, anti Hindu, anti freedom. God himself uses deities to communicate with his people. That commandment rips people away from communicating with God, or from being inspired by visions from God. The 2nd commandment is INCREDIBLY evil.

[Rider's Pantheon]

Originally Posted by whoppers

Well I certainly wouldn't claim that many of our most beloved characters were moral exemplars to be emulated! Many conservative Jewish and Christian interpreters might argue this, but the Bible itself makes no attempt to absolve these characters of their own character (pun intended heh heh). Sure - there are examples of whitewashing of certain individuals going on (David's character, for example, in both Samuel and Chronicles) but from this very act we can tell that there was a reason the authors engaged in this rewriting.

But again - Jesus was killed by the Romans. End of story.

And again - you are applying modern morals to ancient characters. What earthly good does this do? It's very anachronistic. I've stated this several times, and have yet to see you address it meaningfully. In fact, you haven't really deal with many of the important issues I've raised. You keep claiming that Moses was a murderer - even though it's been demonstrated differently. Okay - in ONE case he was the definition of a murderer: when he slew the Egyptian that was beating the Israelite slaves in Egypt, and he was forced to flee Egypt for this crime. But should we condemn him for this, really? Apart from that, where else does Moses murder (and like I've said before, enforcing a law is not murder - not matter how much you disagree with that law!)?

You can say that till you are blue in the face, but it will never change the fact that the Bible condemns Jesus to die. And the Pharisees used the Bible to sanction their want to murder him. It is a FACT. Jesus healed on the Sabbath, and he walked the streets and preached of a God who was different from Moses's. According to the Bible, Jesus was GUILTY. You can use the Bible to put anyone (especially Jews) to die publically, in an effort to strike fear in the hearts of anyone they wish to control. The Bible is THE immoral book of terrorism. That is the policies it teaches and demonstrates. Jesus was just another innocent victim of terrorism. And he never lifted a finger against it.

Moses and YHWH had an innocent man stoned to death for peacefully defying Moses's tyranny by innocently picking up sticks on Moses's Sabbath. Moses had 3000 innocent Jews murdered for expressing their freedom to worship whoever they wanted, in whatever peaceful way they wanted. The Golden calf worshippers were innocent in the eyes of God. They did everything right, and NOTHING wrong. Moses was a cold blooded, tyrant, terrorist dictator. I could go on.....

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Rider's Pantheon

Any commandment that makes demands like "no God before me, for I am a jealous, control freak with abandonment issues" kind of demands. The 2nd commandment is absolutely ridiculous. Erecting statues or having creativity means the death sentence. It is clearly anti Egyptian, anti Hindu, anti freedom. God himself uses deities to communicate with his people. That commandment rips people away from communicating with God, or from being inspired by visions from God. The 2nd commandment is INCREDIBLY evil.

Apparently you have made yourself God's judge since you consider Him a "control" freak. Does that make married people who demand fidelity from their partners control freaks too? The Israelites engaged in a "covenant" with God-- a covenant is a two way street, sort of like a contract. One of God's demands was fidelity.

Erecting statues is evil? Okay, but where does the second commandment mention "creativity." The second commandment logically follows the "no God before me" contract for fidelity.

You are overreaching and showing your prejudice by claiming Christianity is "ant-Egyptian." What a foolish statement. The Israelis may have then and may be now anti-Egyptian (seeing as how the Egyptians have several times engaged them in war, not to mention having enslaved all Israelis in the past---oops, I guess enslavement is a Christian thing--the Egyptians could not have possibly enslaved anyone . But then the Israelis are not Christian. The Jewish orthodox religious view of the ten commandments may very well differ from Christians.

Admit it. There is absolutely no logic in your arguments. You are attempting to justify to yourself your anti-Christian feelings. There are contradictions in the Scriptures, none of which you have bothered to point out, but the only major contradiction on this thread is---well, the convoluted opinions that you have expressed.

Your welcome to the final comment--because that is the kind of thinking I detect in your writing. You have to have the last word--because something is eating at your heart.

Blessings.

ego sum perfectus