The "contest" is totally ridiculous.

Spider is always claiming that we can only go to the Biblical God in FAITH, because if we had PROOF, that would somehow negate our FREE WILL. (his argument from another thread, not mine)

Yet all he does is try to PROVE that the religion is true.

It's seriously an oxymoronic endeavor Spider.

If you believe that the only way to God is through FAITH, then why don't you just accept that, and quit trying to PROVE that Christianity is true?

Everytime you get into trying to prove it all you do is cause people to show a myriad of contradictions of why it can't be true.

Your methods are actually backfiring on you.

You need to learn how to spread LOVE.

See The Lonely Walker. Hopefully you can learn something from him. He's one of the most outstanding Christians on the site I think.

If I could be a Christian like him I might give it a shot.

But I see that even he is often under attack by other Christians.

Is nothing sacred in your religion?

Abra,

I'm not trying to prove that Christianity is true. What I have shown is that so far nobody has been able to offer an actual contradiction from the Bible. If the Bible contradicts itself, then the contradiction must be in the Bible, correct? If the contradiction isn't in the Bible, then it stands to reason that the Bible doesn't contradict itself. That's been the goal all along and I believe it is going swimmingly.

Now the "contest" is "totally ridiculous"?

You jumped in with both feet. You didn't question the rules. You didn't argue against the resolution. You appeared willing and ready to present contradictions. I believe since it has become appearant that while some situations within the Bible seems contradictory, rational explainations are easily found, you are no longer so keen on this contest. This doesn't mean you or anyone else has to say "Christianity is the only way to God", but it should remove the "the Bible contradicts itself" argument from your reasons why Christianity "can't be true".

I'm sure Jesus could give better answers, does that mean I shouldn't try? In all honesty, if these "contradictions" are keeping people from accepting Christianity, then why shouldn't Christians try to explain them? Christians are told "to every man an answer". We should be able to answer the questions people might ask of us and it appears to me that these are some fairly important questions.



Don't you think this reveals a bit of bias? You wouldn't understand his answers, but you are sure they would be better than mine? I'm sorry, but I thinkt that someone who is supposed to be an unbiased judge shouldn't determine that another's arguments are better before the debate is even started.

Boy you can say that again.

I'll grant you, at times David's posts are hard to understand. But if you really take the time to read them carefully they sometimes make sense. In fact, they often make very PROFOUND sense once the message actually sinks in.

I have been deeply touched by Davidben's words on several occassions.

I confess there have been posts of his that I didn't understand at all. But those posts weren't directed to me specifically. Perhaps they were meant for someone else who DID understand what he was saying.

There's something profound about Davidben. Deeply spiritual.

I admire the man greatly.

You did what???

Where???

When???

I must have missed that part.



I knew the "contest" was totally ridiculous when I came in this thread.

I'm not concerned with winning or losing any "Contest"

I just thought it might be fun to see where it goes.

I did enjoy the ride.

It was worth playing just for fun.

I'm not out to prove anything.

When I say that I believe the bible is a totally inconsistent contradicting mess, I offer that as a PERSONAL OPINION.

Sure, I'll give my reasons when those discussions arise. And I'll stand by them. But not because I'm trying to prove them to anyone. I'm just telling you that that's my OPINION and you haven't changed it.

You haven't convinced me that the Bible doesn't contain contradictions. On the Contrary, Krimsa, and Belushi just convinced me of a few more that I wasn't even aware of previously.

It seems that they've convinced Tribo too.

Like Tribo, I think we've given enough evidence for several contraditions.

And I'm in total agreement with Tribo, that your rebuttals for Belushi's assertions are totally non-biblical speculation. Precisely what you were trying to accuse me of doing.

I think Eljay's medical arguments against Krisma's contradiction concerning birth was also non-biblical speculation. The Bible made it clear that it was a 'spiritual' uncleanliness, and not a physical one.

So, I see three wins already, Krimsa, Belushi, and Myself.

GAME OVER.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Abra,

You can be the winner, if you want. I think the real winners will be anyone who walks away with a better understanding of the Bible.

I'm not concerned with winning debates Spider.

As far as I'm concerned this thread never happened.

Let me clarify.

I believe that every contradiction offered has been aptly refuted. The refutations have not been argued against expect to imply that they are wrong.

Concerning Belushi's assertion,...

Your argument against it was totally non-biblical speculation which you yourself demand must be thrown out by your own rules.

Tribo, clearly refuted your arguments.

Concerning Krimsa's assertion,...

Eljay's argument that the woman was "medically" unclean was again non-biblical speculation which didn't hold up, because the Bible clearly stated that the woman was not to touch anything "Holy" indicating that she was "spiritually" unclean.

If that's not a refutation by YOUR OWN RULES I don't know what is.

Like I say, I don't care about win or lose.

But clearly you can't even play by YOUR OWN RULES.

You're not even being reasonable. But then, in all truthfulness, I can't remember a time when you ever were.

Have a nice delusion.

Abra,

It's not non-Biblical speculation. The Bible only describes two events about Judas' death.

1) He hanged himself (you don't necessarily die instantly from this)
2) He plunged headlong off a cliff.

#2 doesn't claim he jumped or that he was alive when he fell. To assume that Judas had to die from either hanging (which doesn't say he died) or from falling (which would have killed him, but we have no indication he was alive) would be speculation. So my speculation is equally valid. The difference is that suggesting that the Bible claims that Judas died from both hanging and falling is completely false, the Bible doesn't claim either. It's clear that Judas committed suicide, but not when he died or how he died. Even if Judas died from hanging himself as Matthew 27 suggests, that doesn't mean he couldn't have fallen from the tree onto rocks. There is no contradiction there. The contradiction would be if both verses stated that Judas died in different manners. That isn't stated, it's left as a blank. Without either verse claiming the cause of death and since Matthew 27 ends at Judas hanging himself, it is without merit to claim that the two verses contradict one another.

??? - somethings changed ?

spiders whole mannerism has changed for the most part? people don't do that in mid stream? somethings up? I'm not saying for sure I'm correct - but it seems as if someone else is responding for him? someone is feeding this info to him and then he is posting it after receiving it? can i prove it? only it is not like anything he's been posting up to the last few post or so? i have a bad feeling about this within me! if this is so XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not getting the Romans reference. But I'll press on.

Although I can't give you the exact verse - I know that there is a verse where God says "come - let us reason together" (too lazy to look it up right now) anyway...

To me there is a difference between the ability to reason, and the attribute of being reasonable.
Is God logical you ask. I would think so. It is hard to be absolute about this - because no matter how many times - or ways one can examine the commands and works of God (especially in the OT) we are limited only by our understanding of the facts at hand. This is why it is diffecult to be anything but subjective when drawing conclusions about "why" God does anything. We just don't know enough about the backstory to adequately discern whether He was being "reasonable" or not.

The bible makes it pretty clear that man's ways are not God's way. So I pretty much hold my opinions of His actions in reserve until I can figure out a logical understanding of "why" that doesn't extend beyond my understanding of "who". If that makes sense.

I don't find the consequences of evil actions unreasonable. Nor do I feel that God's demanding of man to act out those consequences on others who are evil "unreasonable".

I have my personal reasons for not blindly supporting the death penalty for certain acts of cruelty and violence, however I do not think it unreasonable that we have it. Forgiveness does not pre-empt consequence, as far as I'm concerned.
This always seems to come up as a reason to support the "unreasonableness of God" - and I'm not sure why. The consequence existed before the action - so when the time comes to face the judgement of it - how is God being unreasonable if He's also being just and rightious. And consequence does not discern itself with the faithful or faithless. As ye reap - so shall ye sow.

Drowning people in a flood is a consequence of the actions and lifestyle they chose. Sending a son to die for the sins of the world to bring salvation to those who believe does NOT stop God from allowing the consequences of the actions of man to run it's course. Whether you die in a flood, or die in your bed of old age, does not matter. You are being dealt with in the EXACT same manner. This has not, and will not ever change for any human being or creature that walks this planet.

Isn't that dealing with man with consistancy?

"It is the soul who sins who will die."

The only consistant thing on the planet Abra!

Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a throw-together collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well thoughtout plan.

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these, so far;

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically."
In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD (which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want)

2. "There was more there than...."
This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "A" AND "B" which is said nowhere.
This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "A+B."
But it doesn't say there was "A+B+little green apples."
This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "A") and the only way.
I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses or extrapolating things that might have happened.

3. "It has to be understood in context."
I find this tedious because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view.
Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?

4. There was just a copying/writing error."
OF COURSE THERE WAS!!! ITS 2000 YEARS OLD FFS!!!
This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down.
Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said.
... and that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN.
Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an interesting misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.


All-in-all, I knew this contest would ultimately not gain anything. The standard tactics that would be used are the typical misdirection of the "fors" (which allows extrapolation and assumption) and the logical responses from the "againsts" (which are not allowed to use assumtion of even the most logical things)

Then we have to deal with the temper tantrums of a bible bully, so, people, Im going to depart this thread, realising that a hollow victory is not worth the protons it took to produce it, and Im going to reorganise my sock drawer.

Hope you all slept well


One more blinding contradiction that I will leave you to debate over ...

Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Well - I'll take the case of Judas. It is not clear that these verses are contradictory, or complimentary. Non of the other gospels record the death of Judas, so we only have these two accounts to examine. Another thing worth of note, is that the intended audiences differ. For Matthew - it is the Jewish audience, for Luke - gentile. (or more specifically - both)

I think it is reasonable to make some valid assumptions about Judas before drawing conclusions here. The first being that having "hung" himself - be it in the traditional manner we understand, or falling on his sword, a more likely occurance - he would surely have been neglected. Left there to rot, as it were. It is likely that his being left there would have possible subjected him to wild animals - ripping his flesh and exposing his internals, or after a period of time - decay would set in, insects would invade... the picture becomes clear.

It might be worthy to note as well that even had he hung himself (getting a rope, something to stand on, securing the rope, etc.) it is not beyond reason to think that he would have simply been cut down, and left there to suffer the aformentioned fate.

The point of the matter - is that neither account seemed to give Judas much thought, and the other three gospels don't deem it even worth mentioning.

Harldy a "contradiction" to discredit the gospel message I would think. Just something to give a little more thought to if one deems that "important".

I think if you look at the book of Leviticus and the extended exegesis of "unclean" you will find that most of the instructions concerning the cleansing rituals do not reference or make mention of the actions that caused them as being an atonement for sin. Nowhere is it even suggested that childbirth is a sin - so interpreting "unclean" to mean this is incorrect exegesis.

As to paying the priests for performing the rituals - this is a practice that goes on - even today. Be it doctor, nurse, midwife - if you have a child, you're paying somebody. But for the same reason - you are not paying out because of "sin" but of purification, which was a concernment for physical health - not spiritual.

So if Jesus did not come to change the Law - why is it He did not do any of the things you are accusing the bible of demaning man should do?

If you were right about your assumptions Abra - I would have expected Jesus to do all of the things your accusing scripture have man do. Since He didn't - my doubt is on your observations - NOT scripture.

I see you've met Feral!

Let's let that one rest for a while.

Now you're getting it! And so quickly too.