Contradictions Challenge

[Earthling]

Go back and quote properly and I will try. Quoting out of context is often done as an attempt to lie through omission. There was no excuse to edit such a short post.

No. I'm not going to do that. I edited the post because the rest of it was irrelevant. I don't like the way you try to manipulate the discussion. I find your approach to be unnecessarily condescending, hypocritical, disingenuous, and pretentious. I'm putting you in your place. If you rephrase the question with the respect it deserves for me to address it I would give you an answer.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That sounds just to me. Not you?

Not if I am told to do so by an authority who, otherwise, would be telling me that I would be the one punished for doing so, no. If the matter were left between myself and the person who stole from me, then yes, I could see some form of "justice" in the act. But we're talking about a situation in which I, instead, appeal to an authority and then us together going and GANGING UP on the individual who did the stealing. We're talking about an authority who would likely punish the other person for stealing, telling me... "Go ahead, you know it will feel good, and I won't punish you. We'll just punish that guy and you go ahead and take that scumbag's stuff."

Not to mention that the later teachings (New Testament, which I am sure you also agree with) would likely have you "turning the other cheek", "loving your enemy", "forgiving trespasses against you." Is STEALING BACK from someone ("WITH INTEREST" as @Deeje ridiculously added) doing ANY of those things, do you think? In other words... would JESUS ever want you stealing from people? Answer truthfully now.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No. I'm not going to do that. I edited the post because the rest of it was irrelevant. I don't like the way you try to manipulate the discussion. I find your approach to be unnecessarily condescending, hypocritical, disingenuous, and pretentious. I'm putting you in your place. If you rephrase the question with the respect it deserves for me to address it I would give you an answer.

Sounds to me like things are just getting a little too uncomfortable for you. That your hint in the OP that people may just be "afraid of the truth" isn't really working out. Who ends up being afraid? Interesting. Too bad, so sad.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No. I'm not going to do that. I edited the post because the rest of it was irrelevant. I don't like the way you try to manipulate the discussion. I find your approach to be unnecessarily condescending, hypocritical, disingenuous, and pretentious.

Please note the use of the words "unnecessarily condescending, hypocritical, disingenuous and pretentious", then note the very next sentence:

I'm putting you in your place. If you rephrase the question with the respect it deserves for me to address it I would give you an answer.

Matthew 7:5.

 

[ChristineM]

No. I'm not going to do that. I edited the post because the rest of it was irrelevant. I don't like the way you try to manipulate the discussion. I find your approach to be unnecessarily condescending, hypocritical, disingenuous, and pretentious. I'm putting you in your place. If you rephrase the question with the respect it deserves for me to address it I would give you an answer.

Ditto, i find your approach to be pedantic, condescending, hypocritical, disingenuous, pretentious with a liberal sprinkling of confirmation bias, lacking respect and littered with deliberate untruths in order to massage sensibilities.

 

[Deeje]

"Rules of engagement?" Are you being serious? There are no such "rules." Saying there are is basically admitting that God sanctions war under some kind of "proper" circumstances. There are no such circumstances. To say that there are is ludicrous.

Who or what do you think God is?
Does he have the right to sanction war? Who else can?
He has sanctioned war on occasion in the distant past when enemies tried to invade the land he had gifted to his own people. They were authorized to defend it. I have no problem with that. God alone has the right to take a life if someone commits a capital offense. He has authorized others to act in his behalf so that his laws can be upheld.

If the death penalty is legal in your state, and someone administers it...does that make the executioner a murderer?

You have nothing to back up that claim - except maybe that The Bible tells that God supposedly told some people that it was "okay" to kill, pillage, and take as slaves their various enemies of the time. You don't find it at all a little "too convenient" that when God's "chosen people" were having some difficulties with other tribes that God appeared and told them, specifically, that it was "okay" to do these things? What I am getting at is that war is so obviously heinous, so brutally violent and unforgiving that OF COURSE these people felt they needed some form of justification if they could EVER pretend or claim that they were righteous in doing these things. That they got to "write the book" about what happened doesn't make it all okay.

I can see that this makes you a little hot under the collar.....are you angry at God because he doesn't fit into the box you created for him?

In the cases that you describe, Israel were not the aggressors, but the defenders. "To the victor go the spoils".....that is accepted even today. God granted them the victory over their enemies. If you don't like it...you don't have to. God does not need your permission to carry out his purpose for our existence. There is a purpose to it all.

we're not, at all, talking about people cleaning up after God sweeps through and kills people (I think it is interesting how you basically admit that it is okay for God to do this, by the way).

Of course it is OK for God to do whatever he sees fit with his own creation.....who else has a better right?

If he issues a warning about an impending disaster, and people ignore it, the penalty will apply. Not believing the warning will not prevent the disaster. We believe that it is coming...ready or not. You can believe whatever you like. Shaking your fist at God will get you nowhere. His purpose will go ahead with us or without us.

To make the situation like what we're talking about, then YOU, yourself would be the one going in and doing the killing. You, yourself would be the one stealing from people who were not necessarily dead yet. That's what we're talking about. Like my response to the paragraph above - YOU DON'T GET TO CLAIM RIGHTEOUSNESS WHILE COMMITTING SUCH ACTS. No one does.

Since the days of ancient Israel in defending the Promised Land, God has not sanctioned bloodshed. He sent his son to usher in an era of peace, where his disciples would not engage in violence under any circumstances.
Neither myself nor any living human will kill in God's name again. The Bible says that his executional forces in the future will be angelic. I will never be the one doing the killing...I can assure you.

It IS murder! What else can you call it? It is pre-meditated killing of other individuals. That's murder. What is confusing about this?

I agree with you....there is no scriptural justification for Christians to engage in any killing. You were speaking about actions that were thousands of years in the past. The pre-Christian era was a pretty savage time which involved encounters with pretty savage people. When Christ came he basically taught us to 'return our sword to its place because, if we lived by the sword, we would die by the sword'.
We as Christ's followers are to 'love our enemies', so any person who claims to be a Christian who spills blood is acting contrary to the teachings of the Master.

It is something one should never, ever want to have to engage in if there is almost ANY other alternative. It just so happens that God is not about better alternatives, apparently. Wouldn't you have to agree?

No, I do not agree that God is not about better alternatives. As I said, no Christian can engage in violence or bloodshed. The better alternative was taught by Jesus Christ. Who told you otherwise?

Reasons for acts you would otherwise deem immoral ARE EXCUSES. Plain and simple.

In you opinion perhaps.....and from your limited perspective....but certainly not from mine. God is incapable of immorality or injustice. He does not need to make excuses to you or anyone else. His justice is perfect, whilst our limited human evaluation of his actions may be poor and based on faulty reasoning.
But you are free to believe whatever you wish....how could God be any fairer than that?

 

[Jumi]

I don't see that happening, I've never seen anyone do that. I've been accused of doing that. I think that it may be a case of the skeptic or a believer clinging to an interpretation that they believe as inaccurate being changed into something that, in their opinion, is still inaccurate but only holding to that opinion because they can't or don't want to let go of their conviction that it is still inaccurate.

If you could give me an example where someone here, me or anyone else doing what you say that might help me address it.

I can try to remember to let you know when I run into someone like that again. But I gather from your post that you don't care about contradictions of numbers in Bible, so that's nice. What I meant were things like Jehoaichin's age (8 or 18?) and was Jesus crucified at the third or sixth hour...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Hebrew text doesn’t say “cattle” it says “livestock”. (I always think of cattle as cows and bulls.)

No, the Hebrew says כֹּל מִקְנֵה. According to The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, the primary meaning of the noun in question (with specific reference to "Ex. 9:3 +") is:

1. cattle in gen., including cows, sheep, horses, asses, camels (any or all of them), as purchasable domestic animals
​

 

[ChristineM]

Deuteronomy 6:5 et al. Love God.

Deuteronomy 6:13 et al. Fear God.

1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love.

 

[james blunt]

There is no fear in love.

untrue words they are , fear love for fear those we leave behind.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Who or what do you think God is?
Does he have the right to sanction war? Who else can?

Last I checked God didn't sanction any of the wars of recent history. Did He? Yet someone "sanctioned" those wars... hmmm... who was it?

He has sanctioned war on occasion in the distant past when enemies tried to invade the land he had gifted to his own people. They were authorized to defend it. I have no problem with that. God alone has the right to take a life if someone commits a capital offense. He has authorized others to act in his behalf so that his laws can be upheld.

But the point is the laws weren't upheld. We call that "martial law" in the U.S. - when the governing authority wants to do something that is outside of their current laws so that they don't have to be held accountable. It is generally frowned upon.

If the death penalty is legal in your state, and someone administers it...does that make the executioner a murderer?

Yep. That person may not be prosecuted for it, or held accountable by the law, but it doesn't change what is being done. Why do you think there are so many who so adamantly oppose the death penalty?

I can see that this makes you a little hot under the collar.....are you angry at God because he doesn't fit into the box you created for him?

You mistake my emphasizing what I think are important points as my being angry or something. If your God has done anything, it is to prove himself ineffectual in every way imaginable. I'd even go so far as to say that He's not even there, really. Tell me... do you find yourself getting angry at "nothing?"

In the cases that you describe, Israel were not the aggressors, but the defenders. "To the victor go the spoils".....that is accepted even today. God granted them the victory over their enemies. If you don't like it...you don't have to. God does not need your permission to carry out his purpose for our existence. There is a purpose to it all.

"To the victor go the spoils" is NOT a rule, nor a statement of divine law or anything so grand. It is a "this is how it is" type of statement. And it is usually used to explain why people who "win" wars are "allowed" to write the history books, or are "allowed" to ransack the "enemy's" homes. In other words, it is used most often in a negative light, to shrug off what is otherwise a terrible situation and try to move on.

Of course it is OK for God to do whatever he sees fit with his own creation.....who else has a better right?

Sure, I'll buy it. He can do whatever He wants. Although... I haven't really seen Him do much of anything. I've seen a lot of people taking credit for good things on God's behalf, and excusing Him from bad things all the time. There's really not much else going on.

If he issues a warning about an impending disaster, and people ignore it, the penalty will apply. Not believing the warning will not prevent the disaster. We believe that it is coming...ready or not. You can believe whatever you like. Shaking your fist at God will get you nowhere. His purpose will go ahead with us or without us.

Where is God that I might shake my fist at Him? Any ideas?

Since the days of ancient Israel in defending the Promised Land, God has not sanctioned bloodshed. He sent his son to usher in an era of peace, where his disciples would not engage in violence under any circumstances.
Neither myself nor any living human will kill in God's name again. The Bible says that his executional forces in the future will be angelic. I will never be the one doing the killing...I can assure you.

Oh... because NOW it's not okay, right? But it was then. I see. Makes perfect sense (not really).

I agree with you....there is no scriptural justification for Christians to engage in any killing. You were speaking about actions that were thousands of years in the past. The pre-Christian era was a pretty savage time which involved encounters with pretty savage people. When Christ came he basically taught us to 'return our sword to its place because, if we lived by the sword, we would die by the sword'.
We as Christ's followers are to 'love our enemies', so any person who claims to be a Christian who spills blood is acting contrary to the teachings of the Master.

So God's law/mind changes with the times. Got it.

No, I do not agree that God is not about better alternatives. As I said, no Christian can engage in violence or bloodshed. The better alternative was taught by Jesus Christ. Who told you otherwise?

You completely missed my point. Being as powerful as He is, He didn't have to give the command for anyone to go kill anyone else... wouldn't you agree? He could have handled it in almost any other way He chose... including doing something about it Himself, if He was really that concerned. That He did order others to go about the business is proof of one of a few things:

• He wanted to see it happen - thought it might be interesting.
• He is unable to do things Himself for some reason.
• He was scared.
• The whole thing was untrue and just an excuse used by the people who wanted to go in and kill everyone and take their stuff.

Can you think of any other alternatives? You'll probably say something like, "This was God's will and an expression of what God felt was just at the time, and He's God, so He can do whatever He wants - whether or not it is good for humanity, or any given human is irrelevant. People are cattle to God - and He can do with His property as He deems fit." Right?

In you opinion perhaps.....and from your limited perspective....but certainly not from mine. God is incapable of immorality or injustice.

This is only true if He defines what is moral or just. But don't you see? This means that, at any time, He can simply bend or break the rules... and it doesn't have to be in humanity's best interest. You wouldn't even know if it was or not... given the kinds of things God is credited with so far. You'd just have to take His word for it, and hope that you're right about His nature. That's really all you have... and it isn't much.

He does not need to make excuses to you or anyone else. His justice is perfect, whilst our limited human evaluation of his actions may be poor and based on faulty reasoning.
But you are free to believe whatever you wish....how could God be any fairer than that?

You've just gotten done saying and asserting this whole time that "God doesn't have to play fair." Do you get that?

 

[ChristineM]

untrue words they are , fear love for fear those we leave behind.

I didn't write them, blame john of bible fame

Anyway, leaving a loved one behind (assuming not in death*) does not generate the fear emotion but the loss emotion

* In death it's the other way round, those left behind have the sense of loss, the deceased is dead so no emotions

 

[Neb]

In Exodus 9:3 God set a plague killing all of Egypt's horses.
Exodus 14:9 The Egyptians overtook Moses on horseback.

So where did these horses come from?

Livestock: "livestock which are in the field, on the horses, on the donkeys, on the camels, on the herds, and on the flocks." Exodus 9:3
are different from "all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh," Exodus 14:9. IOW, Pharaoh's "horses" were NOT considered "livestock". God saved Pharao's horses so he could chase the Israelites and totally destroy all Pharaoh's horses and chariots and his horsemen in front of Moses and the Israelites.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I will answer your claims of Biblical contradictions. One at a time per poster, please. Once I address your contradiction you can add another, but I'm only one person so please. 1 at a time. Unless, of course, you are afraid of the truth!

Would you please clarify Genesis 21:14, Genesis 21:31,32 and Exodus 13:17,18 in light of Wikipedia: Philistines?

 

[james blunt]

* In death it's the other way round, those left behind have the sense of loss, the deceased is dead so no emotions

While alive you love , loved ones, you know when you are gone, they will be hurt and feel hurt. So I fear love and sometimes wish my children did not love me.
I fear I love them and fear they love me, but do I want them hate me when I am alive? Of course not so it becomes a paradox.

 

[ChristineM]

While alive you love , loved ones, you know when you are gone, they will be hurt and feel hurt. So I fear love and sometimes wish my children did not love me.
I fear I love them and fear they love me, but do I want them hate me when I am alive? Of course not so it becomes a paradox.

Hurt is not fear

You fear love, does not mean fear is love

 

[james blunt]

Hurt is not fear

You fear love, does not mean fear is love

Fear is generated from love. If I did not love I would not fear death or have empathy. Would I kill for love if to protect my children?
Of course, the fear of my children being hurt caused by the love, is what would make me commit murder, a sin .
But is it a sin to commit murder for love?
I do not believe so in the context I have mentioned.

 

[blü 2]

I will answer your claims of Biblical contradictions. One at a time per poster, please. Once I address your contradiction you can add another, but I'm only one person so please. 1 at a time. Unless, of course, you are afraid of the truth!

You appear to be saying that there are no contradictions in the bible. Is that right?

If so, since there are many contradictions, that would indicate you intend to reply in the role of an apologist and not, for example, as an objective student of ancient texts or as an historian, no?

For example, do you agree with Bart Ehrman's general approach in >Misquoting Jesus< and >Forged<?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Works and deeds vs faith and grace

1. Works

Romans 2:6

5But because of your hard and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God “will repay each oneaccording to his deeds.” 7To those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life.…

Ecc 12:14

…13When all has been heard, the conclusion of the matter is this: Fear God and keep His commandments, because this is the whole duty of man. 14For God will bring everydeed into judgment, along with every hidden thing,whether good or evil.


Isaiah 57:12 (deeds-rightous works) compared to deeds as a means of fsith @BilliardsBall

Matthew 16:27 and more: Scripture on deeds

2. Faith and grace

through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, Romans 1:5
Obedience to god (which is contrary to the idea of saving grace without ones works [how I read it is works for god isnt rightous works and because its for god, through them be saved)

But

Luke 7:50 says:
And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace

(So does this mean faith only, no doing anything for god from self?)

John 5:24 it says
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

(Yet, one is judged based on one's deeds not by ones faith (above))

3. I know all the answers based on my experience, study, and reasing scripture but because its not aola scriptura, Id like to hear another point of view.


A. If god says he will judge by ones deeds, what does it mean to be saved by faith only when deeds are weighed for salvation while faith is weighed by one's decision to follow and act that salvation? (Are you judged by faith or deeds? )

B. Grace is unmerited favor

Epphesians 2:8-9; romans 11:6

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast

Righteous works (ego) or works for god (devotion)?

Mathew 7:21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

(But then one still must do something?) What exactly can be done without call it works?

James 1:22 here is a good one (@BilliardsBall )
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

(This is the works I mean)

Contradiction? Yet, it says faith only to savs

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. (Romans 3:28)

James 2:24
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone

But

Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I honestly think all this is in context

Works for self: righteous and of the law which is not the same as works for god

Anyway,

3. Can you simplify in your view OP works in relation to god and man? Or is it just the word that gives conflicting messages?

4. If god saved the word, and whomever believes in christ is saved, then christ didnt die for all but a selective few. If he is the savior of jew ans gentil why would he have stipulations over his own creation and then say he loves all? Romans 5:8 (or all just means who believes?)

Proverbs 8:13 I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.

Children and infant cant love god until they are aware of him i their heart not by knowledge. All have sined.

5. How does infant gets a way out when they are born of inherited sin?

I'm familiar with all these verses and more, and their context. I want to keep it simple for us. Please address the two verse passages I've shared:

John 3:16 and Romans 4:1-8, since they VERY plainly explain that one need not do any works to get salvation, keep salvation, feel salvation or confirm salvation. Showing me, for example, Ephesians, if it teaches what you think it teaches, is showing the Bible has contradictions, if you understand John and Romans as quoted here.

 

[ChristineM]

Fear is generated from love. If I did not love I would not fear death or have empathy. Would I kill for love if to protect my children?
Of course, the fear of my children being hurt caused by the love, is what would make me commit murder, a sin .
But is it a sin to commit murder for love?
I do not believe so in the context I have mentioned.

nope separate emotions.

Im pretty sure you would fear death whether you loved or not, its human instinct to survive.

The fear of your children being hurt is a reaction. It is not caused by love, yo would have a similar reaction if you saw a complete stranger being hurt.

Sin is a religious irrelevance, murder is illegal and morally wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I'm not going to do that. I edited the post because the rest of it was irrelevant. I don't like the way you try to manipulate the discussion. I find your approach to be unnecessarily condescending, hypocritical, disingenuous, and pretentious. I'm putting you in your place. If you rephrase the question with the respect it deserves for me to address it I would give you an answer.

it was not irrelevant and you know it. This indicates that you cannot debate properly. The part you edited out explained the question. Your only excuse is that you could not deal with your earlier failure. By editing you lost any right to demand respect for your myths. Respect is earned, it is not a right.