Contradictions in the Bible?

[The ClayTaurus]

Of course not.

Why not? You get the answers you feel like getting, and then can just say the rest are unattainable.

 

[Joz]

..... it provides you the same "luxury" the religion does. The lack of drive to strive for answers. Religion does it because they can fall back on "it's God's way" or similiar.

And this really chaps by behind. There ARE reasons things happen the way they do. And to passively fluff things off is just not right. God does not do something without a warning or explanation. So many picture Him above sitting there saying. "Hey, this is a good place to yank the rug out from under so-&-so". And we sit here & say it was God's will or we blame God for the situation. And yes, I've been p*ssed at Him & He knows it.

 

[Joz]

Regardless, just because they can't do it now doesn't mean they can't do it ever.

Seriously? Cloning is creating life from life, not creating life from inanimate objects.

Exactly which side of the fence are you on?

 

[Diuretic]

Why not? You get the answers you feel like getting, and then can just say the rest are unattainable.

Go back and read what I wrote. I said it didn't worry me.

 

[LOki]

With man being fallible I will agree that there probably have been some minor mistakes made through the translations. Still doesn't take away from the Bible message.

I'm not talking only about "mistakes," I'm also speaking of the likelyhood of deliberate manipulation by men. Particularly those men who used, and use, religion and in particular the bible, to validate the exercise of their absolute will over their fellow men.

You also said that man couldn't do evil on his own, ...

Man is evil by nature; he couldn't have done it on his own.

I never said any such thing.

Really? I disagree. I'd say you said that men couldn't do evil on their own, exactly.

I think you continue to assert as much even further. Yes?

Adam & Eve chose to disobey God. They had freewill. They were given full run of the Garden of Eden except for the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil. They were deceived by the pride of the serpent.

Therefore by that very act they chose evil.

Adam and Eve did not have free-will, not once is it asserted in the Bible that Adam and Eve were created in possession of free-will. The presumption is made, very often by those who insist that the purpose of granting free-will is to surrender it to authority, but free-will is not mentioned in the creation of man. It is not until after having ate the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil does the Bible assert any human being to be in possession of free-will. Neither Adam, nor Eve, could have chosen evil without knowledge of the distinction between good and evil. They may have chosen to disobey, and the story asserts that it is so, but prior to eating the Fruit, they could not know that such disobedience was evil, nor that it would lead to evil, because they were not in possesion of the knowledge of the difference. In fact, so profound was this ignorance, that shame was not known to Adam and Eve until when?--until after eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Man's nature became evil redeemable only by the blood of Christ.

The logically inconsistent accusations leading by spuruos logic to the notion that only through the sacrifice of the very best human being, who embodied the very best of human goodness, is the only path to salvation, is the very evidence that causes me to question the nature of the truth of the Bible. Human sacrifice, and sacrifice of the very best of that which is human appears to me to be directly contradictory to the Truth of the Bible.

The Bible does not argue that Adam and Eve chose evil, it argues that Adam and Eve chose disobediance. That disobediance led to knowledge of good and evil, and the freedom to choose good over evil. That freedom to choose between good and evil, with the knowledge of good and evil, could not be excersized in Eden where good was the only choice (everything in Eden was "good" as pronounced by God in Genesis, including the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil)--thus expulsion, that the mettle of man's virtue be validated within the free-will and knowledge Adam and Eve chose. Certainly a more difficult row to hoe than ingnorance in Eden, but better souls are the result IMO.

I am curious, are we reading the same Bible? I'm using the King James Version.

Yes, KJV.

 

[Joz]

Really? I disagree. I'd say you said that men couldn't do evil on their own, exactly.

I keep going back through this thread to find it. Where is it?

Human sacrifice, and sacrifice of the very best of that which is human appears to me to be directly contradictory to the Truth of the Bible.

What are you referring to here?

The Bible does not argue that Adam and Eve chose evil, it argues that Adam and Eve chose disobediance.

The Bible doesn't argue anything. You're grasping here, mincing words. They chose to disobey the command of God to not eat the fruit of the one tree. They had the choice not to. That is called freewill. They chose to sin.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Exactly which side of the fence are you on?

Huh?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Go back and read what I wrote. I said it didn't worry me.

Whether it worries you or not is immaterial.

 

[Joz]

Huh?

Huh? Do you believe in Creation or not? First you defend the life/cloning issue, then you said that eventually they'll be able to create it. So which side of the fence are you on?

 

[dilloduck]

Aren't the goals of science and religion pretty much the same (except for the fact that if science knows everything then man will be his own master) ?

 

[Phaedrus]

That's a subjective question as to the "ends" of science. Some seem to have immortality in their sights, but I see that as unattainable and ultimatley undesirable. Who wants to live forever? (me)

I personally see the purpose of science as enlightnement/illumination and progress. I realize these are very general terms, and that they do correspond to religion to degree, but I believe they are applied differently.

Note: Man is simultaneously the master of everything and nothing, and the much vaunted abilites science will never change this.

 

[dilloduck]

That's a subjective question as to the "ends" of science. Some seem to have immortality in their sights, but I see that as unattainable and ultimatley undesirable. Who wants to live forever? (me)

I personally see the purpose of science as enlightnement/illumination and progress. I realize these are very general terms, and that they do correspond to religion to degree, but I believe they are applied differently.

Note: Man is simultaneously the master of everything and nothing, and the much vaunted abilites science will never change this.

Enlightened as to what???? Whats' the big mystery????

 

[Phaedrus]

"Life the Universe and Everything" to quote Douglas Adams.

 

[LOki]

I keep going back through this thread to find it. Where is it?

What are you referring to here?

You just have to actually read my responses. I quote you and my responses are to your quotes.

As for finding your own words, note the "Search" function at the top of the page.

The Bible doesn't argue anything. You're grasping here, mincing words.

No, you are now grasping and mincing in an effort to avoid the point.

They chose to disobey the command of God to not eat the fruit of the one tree. They had the choice not to. That is called freewill. They chose to sin.

Nope. They could not choose sin because they did not know what sin was. Freewill only extends as far your nature allows. In as much as you will yourself to levitate, you are not free to do so because it is not in your nature--just like it was not in the natures of either Adam or Eve to choose evil, because they were created good, and had no idea what evil was, they could not choose evil.

Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and the only admonishment supplied as a consequence for such disobediance was death, if I recall it correctly. They were not told that disobediance was a sin. God not once called eating the Fruit sin--men who would have you obey them did that. Since Adam and Eve could not know evil, they could not choose evil; since they could not choose evil, they could not sin; and since the disobediance was not asserted by God to be sin, it was not sin.

That's not to say there weren't consequences to this disobediance--the imperfection of Adam's and Eve's, and particularly that of their progeny, certainly has lead to sin--the knowledgable choosing of evil. The Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil remains good, eating of it was disobediance; yet note that nowhere was that disobediance said by God to be evil, or sin. The explicit consequence was that Adam, Eve and their progeny would know death. After Adam and Eve having eaten the Fruit, God took what measures were necessary to insure that they'd know death, and to insure that choosing good or evil were real choices, so that virtue and sin would be real things, and the measure of man's virtue would be valid.

 

[Phaedrus]

Hey Loki, I realize you're really into your "disagreement", but please be considerate of other lines of conversation rather than continuing this bloodfeud neh?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Huh? Do you believe in Creation or not? First you defend the life/cloning issue, then you said that eventually they'll be able to create it. So which side of the fence are you on?

I appear to have confused you. I disagree with your statement that because someone hasn't been able to create life from nothing at this day and age, that somehow precludes them from ever being able to do it. Saying creating life from life-less is impossible because no one has done it yet is, at best, specious.

My comments regarding cloning were merely to point out that it was a poor example to show that scientists have created life from inanimate objects.

As for the creation of life? I don't know. I'm not religious enough to simply chalk it up to God and move on with my life, but I'm also very aware that current scientific explanations are hardly explanatory. I guess I'm in the "needs more investigation" club. Ideally I'd like to believe that life was created out of the lifeless, and that that could be construed as evidence of the supernatural. My views on religion and science are that often science is just the process through which the work of the supernatural is accomplished. Some wish to believe humans and dinosaurs shared the earth, that carbon dating is a trick of the devil. I prefer to believe that the realm of science is, for the most part, true, but that it doesn't mutually exclude the involvement of a supernatural.

Does that make more sense?

 

[Joz]

....Adam and Eve disobeyed God,......

I rest my case.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Hey Loki, I realize you're really into your "disagreement", but please be considerate of other lines of conversation rather than continuing this bloodfeud neh?

Huh? What are you talking about?

 

[LOki]

Hey Loki, I realize you're really into your "disagreement", but please be considerate of other lines of conversation rather than continuing this bloodfeud neh?

Well Phaedrus, the point of this thread is the inconsistencies in the Bible--whatever the "other lines of conversation" might be, it doesn't appear to me that they are as considerate of the point of this thread as the discussion Joz and I are having regarding the apparent inconsistency between the Truth and the truth of the bible.

I think I will continue on as I was. Thanks anyway!

 

[Joz]

I appear to have confused you. ....Does that make more sense?

Yes you did. And thank you.