Contradictions needed!
- Thread starter Ruby
- Start date
-
- Tags
- contradictions
TexasBEAST
Unregistered
T
On contradictions with respect to baptism, you could always point out the NT verses that say salvation doesn't come from "acts" or "works", but through faith alone.
On the different orders of Creation in Gen. I & II, also notice that Gen. I says it took 6 days, but II says it only took one day ("in the day"...)
Who killed the giant Goliath of Gath? I Samuel says David when he was a boy and Saul was king, but II Sam. says one of David's soldiers when he was grown and king of all Israel...
Might help to find out which groups of passages are considered more important to your religious audience, and focus on those contradictions. It's really easy to get overwhelmed otherwise...
On the subject of whether or not it's even worth doing at all, I say hell ya! Telling the truth about the contradictions in the Bible and defending it isn't wrong, no matter how many religious people get offended in the process. You have nothing to apologize for. And you have nothing to feel guilty over when it starts to get a little fun!
On the different orders of Creation in Gen. I & II, also notice that Gen. I says it took 6 days, but II says it only took one day ("in the day"...)
Who killed the giant Goliath of Gath? I Samuel says David when he was a boy and Saul was king, but II Sam. says one of David's soldiers when he was grown and king of all Israel...
Might help to find out which groups of passages are considered more important to your religious audience, and focus on those contradictions. It's really easy to get overwhelmed otherwise...
On the subject of whether or not it's even worth doing at all, I say hell ya! Telling the truth about the contradictions in the Bible and defending it isn't wrong, no matter how many religious people get offended in the process. You have nothing to apologize for. And you have nothing to feel guilty over when it starts to get a little fun!
Nucular
Illuminator
Hi Ruby
I don't think you should end the debate - don't you find it really weird to see how irrational people can be no matter what you throw at them? I think it's worth it just for the "wow" value
Regarding contradictions - most contradictions in the Bible have some kind of pat, legalistic answer, which usually relies heavily on exploiting abiguity and sometimes sacrificing assumed meaning to temporarily score points (then forgetting that they've 'discovered' a whole new Biblical message the next time you talk to them).
For this reason, I find it much more rewarding to pick maybe just one or two of the strongest contradictions, and never let go (unless they actually are explained away, of course). Sometimes I've been surprised that what I thought was a contradiction, irritatingly wasn't - but in the interests of honesty I pull out after that, often with the rejoinder that I'm unhappy with their obvious twisting of meaning, but that there isn't anywhere else to go with that.
Also, as well as internal contradictions, like those mentioned above, I think it can sometimes be more rewarding to point out where the Bible conflicts with reality, especially if the statement has been made, as it often is, that archaeology always supports the Bible.
One of my favourite examples of this (favourite because although it's suggested as a contradiction by the Skeptics' Annotated Bible I've researched it myself and found it to be uncommented on throughout fundamentalist sites like answersingenesis.org, where often these people get their ripostes, little-used in debates, and fairly watertight) regards Genesis 10 (end) & 11 (beginning), which hold that the whole world had one language after the Flood (which might be expected), and only had many after the Tower of Babel incident. This conflicts with our very clear archaeological evidence of the development of written language, which can be traced pre-Flood (as estimated by fundamentalist Genesis timelines), all the way through the likely dates for Babel, and onwards.
I started that one on this site (a very very quiet board) - I'm called Doubtful there; it was particularly fun there because I was working with their facts and figures, doing research only when a point was challenged, and slowly realised that this was rather a strong point! A longer version is here, although I shamefully neglected that and the debate died (I'm Will on that one btw, my real name). But yeah, there's quite a lot of online stuff, which I link to in those threads, to do with the origins of written language (obviously languages were around long, long before, but it's much harder to argue without physical evidence), and it's pleasant because they come from academic sources with no atheistic motivation.
So yeah. Good luck, I think you should stick with it Ruby!
I don't think you should end the debate - don't you find it really weird to see how irrational people can be no matter what you throw at them? I think it's worth it just for the "wow" value
Regarding contradictions - most contradictions in the Bible have some kind of pat, legalistic answer, which usually relies heavily on exploiting abiguity and sometimes sacrificing assumed meaning to temporarily score points (then forgetting that they've 'discovered' a whole new Biblical message the next time you talk to them).
For this reason, I find it much more rewarding to pick maybe just one or two of the strongest contradictions, and never let go (unless they actually are explained away, of course). Sometimes I've been surprised that what I thought was a contradiction, irritatingly wasn't - but in the interests of honesty I pull out after that, often with the rejoinder that I'm unhappy with their obvious twisting of meaning, but that there isn't anywhere else to go with that.
Also, as well as internal contradictions, like those mentioned above, I think it can sometimes be more rewarding to point out where the Bible conflicts with reality, especially if the statement has been made, as it often is, that archaeology always supports the Bible.
One of my favourite examples of this (favourite because although it's suggested as a contradiction by the Skeptics' Annotated Bible I've researched it myself and found it to be uncommented on throughout fundamentalist sites like answersingenesis.org, where often these people get their ripostes, little-used in debates, and fairly watertight) regards Genesis 10 (end) & 11 (beginning), which hold that the whole world had one language after the Flood (which might be expected), and only had many after the Tower of Babel incident. This conflicts with our very clear archaeological evidence of the development of written language, which can be traced pre-Flood (as estimated by fundamentalist Genesis timelines), all the way through the likely dates for Babel, and onwards.
I started that one on this site (a very very quiet board) - I'm called Doubtful there; it was particularly fun there because I was working with their facts and figures, doing research only when a point was challenged, and slowly realised that this was rather a strong point! A longer version is here, although I shamefully neglected that and the debate died (I'm Will on that one btw, my real name). But yeah, there's quite a lot of online stuff, which I link to in those threads, to do with the origins of written language (obviously languages were around long, long before, but it's much harder to argue without physical evidence), and it's pleasant because they come from academic sources with no atheistic motivation.
So yeah. Good luck, I think you should stick with it Ruby!
evildave
Unregistered
E
I particularly like the "No True Scottsman" attitude Christians maintain.
On one hand, you have Christians claiming they're the most numerous faith on Earth, and deserve extra representation and privileges through goverment, but sometimes in the same breath they tell you that THEY are the only true Christians.
Certain of them just reject half of all Christianity (Catholicism) as damned at once.
Let's cite an easy example (given the nature of the argument in the other thread).
Many Baptists think only Baptists will be in Heaven, and therefore only Baptists should have a voice in government. And that puts the number of "real christians" at around 70,000,000 (worldwide) and around 33,830,000 in the U.S. (#2 to US Catholics). Naturally, the Southern Baptists believe they're the only REAL Baptists (19,881,467 - still #2).
So, we already have "Real Christians" (as defined by Southern Baptists) down to 20 million out of over 300 million. Or 6%. And that's before we start looking at how Southern Baptists view each other for varying adherence and lack or presence of "born-again" attributes in each-other.
That's what some of us might call a "small minority". But for the religiously afflicted and math-challenged, that's "obviously" a popular mandate to put the Baptist church in charge of the whole government.
http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#Pew_branches
On one hand, you have Christians claiming they're the most numerous faith on Earth, and deserve extra representation and privileges through goverment, but sometimes in the same breath they tell you that THEY are the only true Christians.
Certain of them just reject half of all Christianity (Catholicism) as damned at once.
Let's cite an easy example (given the nature of the argument in the other thread).
Many Baptists think only Baptists will be in Heaven, and therefore only Baptists should have a voice in government. And that puts the number of "real christians" at around 70,000,000 (worldwide) and around 33,830,000 in the U.S. (#2 to US Catholics). Naturally, the Southern Baptists believe they're the only REAL Baptists (19,881,467 - still #2).
So, we already have "Real Christians" (as defined by Southern Baptists) down to 20 million out of over 300 million. Or 6%. And that's before we start looking at how Southern Baptists view each other for varying adherence and lack or presence of "born-again" attributes in each-other.
That's what some of us might call a "small minority". But for the religiously afflicted and math-challenged, that's "obviously" a popular mandate to put the Baptist church in charge of the whole government.
http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#Pew_branches
Nucular
Illuminator
Thanks triadboy! It's a thankless task sometimes
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
How about throwing some of the sick stuff in the bible, like incest, in their faces.
I think it was Joseph in the old testament who had only daughters. They felt guilty and sad that he didn't have a son. To rectify this they take him off to some cave or something and get him drunk and sleep with him.
Ughg. Chauvenistic attitudes in the bible sicken me.
I really did read this, and stopped reading the bible because of it. I was too disgusted.
I think it was Joseph in the old testament who had only daughters. They felt guilty and sad that he didn't have a son. To rectify this they take him off to some cave or something and get him drunk and sleep with him.
Ughg. Chauvenistic attitudes in the bible sicken me.
I really did read this, and stopped reading the bible because of it. I was too disgusted.
evildave
Unregistered
E
There's always the Pecker Chopper Massacre. It's a fine story.
AKA "Genesis 34: Dinah and the Shechemites".
Just one among many such stories.
Naturally, that which you don't like is among the things in the Bible that "don't count".
That's why they put it in their most holy Bible, because it doesn't count. Right there in the same section with their most holy commandments.
The important bit about religion and holy books is to pick and choose what you like. Like a buffet.
AKA "Genesis 34: Dinah and the Shechemites".
Just one among many such stories.
Naturally, that which you don't like is among the things in the Bible that "don't count".
That's why they put it in their most holy Bible, because it doesn't count. Right there in the same section with their most holy commandments.
The important bit about religion and holy books is to pick and choose what you like. Like a buffet.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
As pointed out by the ignored it's always best to have a response to a possible response when debating an issue. I've done the EVILution thing for so long I can reply from memory (with a little Google.com help) for just about every creationist argument. You might want to check out the link I'm going to provide (sorry I'm too lazy to create a link) and see about some of the counter arguments on contradictions so you can have a reposte to said fients.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
This is one of the best sites of responses to contradictions I'm aware of.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
This is one of the best sites of responses to contradictions I'm aware of.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Numbers 31 and the 'Okay you can keep the virgins, kill the rest"
Revelation is Paul, not Jesus, in fact alot of the NT is not even close to Jesus.
Where did the people come for the children of Adam and Eve to marry?
Who is Lilith?
God started the first creation and extended Justice without Mercy and destroyed the world.(Qabalah on why there are two creations.)
The Messiah is a Jewish figure to save Jewish nation/state.
Ruby, good luck, I hope you find healing in this process.
Revelation is Paul, not Jesus, in fact alot of the NT is not even close to Jesus.
Where did the people come for the children of Adam and Eve to marry?
Who is Lilith?
God started the first creation and extended Justice without Mercy and destroyed the world.(Qabalah on why there are two creations.)
The Messiah is a Jewish figure to save Jewish nation/state.
Ruby, good luck, I hope you find healing in this process.
evildave
Unregistered
E
Yeah, but the Dinah story is all about conversion!
Read it!
The whole city got circumsized, just so the prince could marry Dinah (demonstating the counter-biblical teaching that girls are more than mere property). And then the nice people of Israel went in and killed all the men, and took all the women, children and valuables.
The lesson taught is: Don't convert to other people's religions. They'll just betray and destroy you for their personal gain, once you are under their power.
Read it!
The whole city got circumsized, just so the prince could marry Dinah (demonstating the counter-biblical teaching that girls are more than mere property). And then the nice people of Israel went in and killed all the men, and took all the women, children and valuables.
The lesson taught is: Don't convert to other people's religions. They'll just betray and destroy you for their personal gain, once you are under their power.
Peter Jenkins
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 560
That whole Jacob/Esau thing really got my goat, when we used to discuss it in sunday school (in the Morg, adults get to go to sunday school, too)
Jacob is blessed of god (but god can't arrange things so that he's the first born?). If you read Genesis 25 - 33 just look at Jacobs personality. He lies, cheats, steals, His wife steals (rachel) and he is a consumate coward - so much so, that when God tells him to return home to meet with his brother (who he has seriously wronged) he sends his servants AND HIS WIVES on in front, in case Esau is in the mood to kill anyone.
Long story short, Jacob's a b****rd, and is blessed by God. Esau shows love and forgiveness and gets the dirty end of the stick.
Peter
Jacob is blessed of god (but god can't arrange things so that he's the first born?). If you read Genesis 25 - 33 just look at Jacobs personality. He lies, cheats, steals, His wife steals (rachel) and he is a consumate coward - so much so, that when God tells him to return home to meet with his brother (who he has seriously wronged) he sends his servants AND HIS WIVES on in front, in case Esau is in the mood to kill anyone.
Long story short, Jacob's a b****rd, and is blessed by God. Esau shows love and forgiveness and gets the dirty end of the stick.
Peter