The Bible contradiction thread

[Mindful]

"It is presumed by Jewish scholars that the removal of the foreskin symbolically represents such a sealing of the covenant."

And in that, we have the same symbolic practice as eating a christ cracker. derpa derp derp derp, durr dah dee durrrr

As much as hobelim wishes he weren't such a hypocrite, kosher law prevents his savior from hypocrisy because he mocks the practice of eating a cracker to metaphorically represent something...while in support of an idea that god commanded kosher law to represent things...you got it!! metaphorically.

there is nothing symbolic about circumcising the penis. It is an actual practice. what good is it to mutilate the weenie if they never do what it is supposed to symbolize because if they did they wouldn't be mutilating weenies.

Eating christ crackers is just as pointless because if they did what it is supposed to symbolize they wouldn't be eating christ crackers derpa derp derp derp, durr dah dee durrrr

Isn't the Christ cracker supposed to represent the body of Christ?

Whereas with the Catholics, there's no representation. It IS the body of Christ. Due to the Transubstantiation. Sort of pagan. Almost cannibalistic.

yes.


Either way its a perversion of what the actual body of christ represents, his teaching from God that the law, the only way to eternal life, was figurative, the subjects hidden.

If anyone one of them actually ate his flesh and drank his blood they wouldn't be dicking around with bread and wine.... ever.

Bread and wine comes from the Jewish. We always do it at Shabbat.

There is always something that comes 'before'.

Like the example for the 'mother and child' - Mary and Jesus, was depicted in a museum of Egyptology, I visited once. It was quite an old notion.

 

[hobelim]

there is nothing symbolic about circumcising the penis. It is an actual practice. what good is it to mutilate the weenie if they never do what it is supposed to symbolize because if they did they wouldn't be mutilating weenies.

Correct, it is an actual practice.

The same with stoning, how slaves were treated and how the blood is drained from actual animals before actually eating them.

You're starting to understand your hypocrisy, good job! Now, go tell someone how eating the blood of an animal is perfectly fine because it's not an actual spirit - and that kosher law is ridiculous because of the same logic that makes a christ cracker ridiculous...the logic that YOU try to use, hypocritically. Think you can do that? I don't.

So, you agree that those actual practices are ridiculous..I don't do any of those things. I showed a more rational way to understand kosher law that is in accord with what Jesus actually taught as recorded in scripture. .

you got a problem with that?

Of course I do, if you actually believe that god dictated any of these things/teachings/writings or other... then your basis for being reasonable flies right the fuck out of the window with the christ crackerers, but yours is worse... you hold onto one piece of magic and dismiss the rest under the argument that believing in magic is ridiculous. You're starting to self-realize your hypocrisy here. That's a feat, the morning discussion wasn't a wash!

you say that if I believed so and so, (but I don't) and then make all these ridiculous conclusions based on a lie you might as well be jerking off in a public park on a sunday afternoon

False - you have stated your belief verbatim - as I described it.

"teaching from God"
"helping me to prove the wisdom of God in giving the command"

I said you believed the command came from God. I was correct.


Now, in parenthesis in this very post, you said "I don't."


Your comprehension is either less than remarkable, or you don't even realize that you're contradicting yourself when you do it. Quit tripping over your dick to avoid your hypocrisy, it's there and in quotations

Likie I said, way back when, God is an actual character in the book. he says this or that.

 

[DOTR]

"It is presumed by Jewish scholars that the removal of the foreskin symbolically represents such a sealing of the covenant."

And in that, we have the same symbolic practice as eating a christ cracker. derpa derp derp derp, durr dah dee durrrr

As much as hobelim wishes he weren't such a hypocrite, kosher law prevents his savior from hypocrisy because he mocks the practice of eating a cracker to metaphorically represent something...while in support of an idea that god commanded kosher law to represent things...you got it!! metaphorically.

there is nothing symbolic about circumcising the penis. It is an actual practice. what good is it to mutilate the weenie if they never do what it is supposed to symbolize because if they did they wouldn't be mutilating weenies.

Eating christ crackers is just as pointless because if they did what it is supposed to symbolize they wouldn't be eating christ crackers derpa derp derp derp, durr dah dee durrrr

Isn't the Christ cracker supposed to represent the body of Christ?

Whereas with the Catholics, there's no representation. It IS the body of Christ. Due to the Transubstantiation. Sort of pagan. Almost cannibalistic.

yes.


Either way its a perversion of what the actual body of christ represents, his teaching from God that the law, the only way to eternal life, was figurative, the subjects hidden.

If anyone one of them actually ate his flesh and drank his blood they wouldn't be dicking around with bread and wine.... ever.

Bread and wine comes from the Jewish. We always do it at Shabbat.

There is always something that comes 'before'.

Like the example for the 'mother and child' - Mary and Jesus, was depicted in a museum of Egyptology, I visited once. It was quite an old notion.

Wait...mothers and children” have been depicted in museums?
Stop the presses!

 

[Mindful]

Correct, it is an actual practice.

The same with stoning, how slaves were treated and how the blood is drained from actual animals before actually eating them.

You're starting to understand your hypocrisy, good job! Now, go tell someone how eating the blood of an animal is perfectly fine because it's not an actual spirit - and that kosher law is ridiculous because of the same logic that makes a christ cracker ridiculous...the logic that YOU try to use, hypocritically. Think you can do that? I don't.

So, you agree that those actual practices are ridiculous..I don't do any of those things. I showed a more rational way to understand kosher law that is in accord with what Jesus actually taught as recorded in scripture. .

you got a problem with that?

Of course I do, if you actually believe that god dictated any of these things/teachings/writings or other... then your basis for being reasonable flies right the fuck out of the window with the christ crackerers, but yours is worse... you hold onto one piece of magic and dismiss the rest under the argument that believing in magic is ridiculous. You're starting to self-realize your hypocrisy here. That's a feat, the morning discussion wasn't a wash!

you say that if I believed so and so, (but I don't) and then make all these ridiculous conclusions based on a lie you might as well be jerking off in a public park on a sunday afternoon

False - you have stated your belief verbatim - as I described it.

"teaching from God"
"helping me to prove the wisdom of God in giving the command"

I said you believed the command came from God. I was correct.


Now, in parenthesis in this very post, you said "I don't."


Your comprehension is either less than remarkable, or you don't even realize that you're contradicting yourself when you do it. Quit tripping over your dick to avoid your hypocrisy, it's there and in quotations

Likie I said, way back when, God is an actual character in the book. he says this or that.

What's interesting is that G-d allowed himself to be tempted by Satan, in the story of Job.

 

[G.T.]

Correct, it is an actual practice.

The same with stoning, how slaves were treated and how the blood is drained from actual animals before actually eating them.

You're starting to understand your hypocrisy, good job! Now, go tell someone how eating the blood of an animal is perfectly fine because it's not an actual spirit - and that kosher law is ridiculous because of the same logic that makes a christ cracker ridiculous...the logic that YOU try to use, hypocritically. Think you can do that? I don't.

So, you agree that those actual practices are ridiculous..I don't do any of those things. I showed a more rational way to understand kosher law that is in accord with what Jesus actually taught as recorded in scripture. .

you got a problem with that?

Of course I do, if you actually believe that god dictated any of these things/teachings/writings or other... then your basis for being reasonable flies right the fuck out of the window with the christ crackerers, but yours is worse... you hold onto one piece of magic and dismiss the rest under the argument that believing in magic is ridiculous. You're starting to self-realize your hypocrisy here. That's a feat, the morning discussion wasn't a wash!

you say that if I believed so and so, (but I don't) and then make all these ridiculous conclusions based on a lie you might as well be jerking off in a public park on a sunday afternoon

False - you have stated your belief verbatim - as I described it.

"teaching from God"
"helping me to prove the wisdom of God in giving the command"

I said you believed the command came from God. I was correct.


Now, in parenthesis in this very post, you said "I don't."


Your comprehension is either less than remarkable, or you don't even realize that you're contradicting yourself when you do it. Quit tripping over your dick to avoid your hypocrisy, it's there and in quotations

Likie I said, way back when, God is an actual character in the book. he says this or that.

What is your epistemology...

 

[hobelim]

"It is presumed by Jewish scholars that the removal of the foreskin symbolically represents such a sealing of the covenant."

And in that, we have the same symbolic practice as eating a christ cracker. derpa derp derp derp, durr dah dee durrrr

As much as hobelim wishes he weren't such a hypocrite, kosher law prevents his savior from hypocrisy because he mocks the practice of eating a cracker to metaphorically represent something...while in support of an idea that god commanded kosher law to represent things...you got it!! metaphorically.

there is nothing symbolic about circumcising the penis. It is an actual practice. what good is it to mutilate the weenie if they never do what it is supposed to symbolize because if they did they wouldn't be mutilating weenies.

Eating christ crackers is just as pointless because if they did what it is supposed to symbolize they wouldn't be eating christ crackers derpa derp derp derp, durr dah dee durrrr

Isn't the Christ cracker supposed to represent the body of Christ?

Whereas with the Catholics, there's no representation. It IS the body of Christ. Due to the Transubstantiation. Sort of pagan. Almost cannibalistic.

yes.


Either way its a perversion of what the actual body of christ represents, his teaching from God that the law, the only way to eternal life, was figurative, the subjects hidden.

If anyone one of them actually ate his flesh and drank his blood they wouldn't be dicking around with bread and wine.... ever.

Bread and wine comes from the Jewish. We always do it at Shabbat.

There is always something that comes 'before'.

Like the example for the 'mother and child' - Mary and Jesus, was depicted in a museum of Egyptology, I visited once. It was quite an old notion.

Yes. The way I see it Jesus, till his dying day, was just trying to convey a simple notion about kosher law. Flesh is a metaphor for teaching, one creature or another are metaphors for types of people in the real world, some clean, some unclean.

He must have been astonished that anyone would dispute that.

I am.

 

[Mindful]

"It is presumed by Jewish scholars that the removal of the foreskin symbolically represents such a sealing of the covenant."

And in that, we have the same symbolic practice as eating a christ cracker. derpa derp derp derp, durr dah dee durrrr

As much as hobelim wishes he weren't such a hypocrite, kosher law prevents his savior from hypocrisy because he mocks the practice of eating a cracker to metaphorically represent something...while in support of an idea that god commanded kosher law to represent things...you got it!! metaphorically.

there is nothing symbolic about circumcising the penis. It is an actual practice. what good is it to mutilate the weenie if they never do what it is supposed to symbolize because if they did they wouldn't be mutilating weenies.

Eating christ crackers is just as pointless because if they did what it is supposed to symbolize they wouldn't be eating christ crackers derpa derp derp derp, durr dah dee durrrr

Isn't the Christ cracker supposed to represent the body of Christ?

Whereas with the Catholics, there's no representation. It IS the body of Christ. Due to the Transubstantiation. Sort of pagan. Almost cannibalistic.

yes.


Either way its a perversion of what the actual body of christ represents, his teaching from God that the law, the only way to eternal life, was figurative, the subjects hidden.

If anyone one of them actually ate his flesh and drank his blood they wouldn't be dicking around with bread and wine.... ever.

Bread and wine comes from the Jewish. We always do it at Shabbat.

There is always something that comes 'before'.

Like the example for the 'mother and child' - Mary and Jesus, was depicted in a museum of Egyptology, I visited once. It was quite an old notion.

Wait...mothers and children” have been depicted in museums?
Stop the presses!

And Mummy's too.

The Mother and Child image is iconic. Throughout the ages. Especially in Roman Caholic churches, where the imagery is vivid.

 

[DOTR]

there is nothing symbolic about circumcising the penis. It is an actual practice. what good is it to mutilate the weenie if they never do what it is supposed to symbolize because if they did they wouldn't be mutilating weenies.

Eating christ crackers is just as pointless because if they did what it is supposed to symbolize they wouldn't be eating christ crackers derpa derp derp derp, durr dah dee durrrr

Isn't the Christ cracker supposed to represent the body of Christ?

Whereas with the Catholics, there's no representation. It IS the body of Christ. Due to the Transubstantiation. Sort of pagan. Almost cannibalistic.

yes.


Either way its a perversion of what the actual body of christ represents, his teaching from God that the law, the only way to eternal life, was figurative, the subjects hidden.

If anyone one of them actually ate his flesh and drank his blood they wouldn't be dicking around with bread and wine.... ever.

Bread and wine comes from the Jewish. We always do it at Shabbat.

There is always something that comes 'before'.

Like the example for the 'mother and child' - Mary and Jesus, was depicted in a museum of Egyptology, I visited once. It was quite an old notion.

Wait...mothers and children” have been depicted in museums?
Stop the presses!

And Mummy's too.

The Mother and Child image is iconic. Throughout the ages. Especially in Roman Caholic churches, where the imagery is vivid.

In most churches the Theotokos is prominent. Not just, or especially, in Roman churches.

 

[G.T.]

Correct, it is an actual practice.

The same with stoning, how slaves were treated and how the blood is drained from actual animals before actually eating them.

You're starting to understand your hypocrisy, good job! Now, go tell someone how eating the blood of an animal is perfectly fine because it's not an actual spirit - and that kosher law is ridiculous because of the same logic that makes a christ cracker ridiculous...the logic that YOU try to use, hypocritically. Think you can do that? I don't.

So, you agree that those actual practices are ridiculous..I don't do any of those things. I showed a more rational way to understand kosher law that is in accord with what Jesus actually taught as recorded in scripture. .

you got a problem with that?

Of course I do, if you actually believe that god dictated any of these things/teachings/writings or other... then your basis for being reasonable flies right the fuck out of the window with the christ crackerers, but yours is worse... you hold onto one piece of magic and dismiss the rest under the argument that believing in magic is ridiculous. You're starting to self-realize your hypocrisy here. That's a feat, the morning discussion wasn't a wash!

you say that if I believed so and so, (but I don't) and then make all these ridiculous conclusions based on a lie you might as well be jerking off in a public park on a sunday afternoon

False - you have stated your belief verbatim - as I described it.

"teaching from God"
"helping me to prove the wisdom of God in giving the command"

I said you believed the command came from God. I was correct.


Now, in parenthesis in this very post, you said "I don't."


Your comprehension is either less than remarkable, or you don't even realize that you're contradicting yourself when you do it. Quit tripping over your dick to avoid your hypocrisy, it's there and in quotations

Likie I said, way back when, God is an actual character in the book. he says this or that.

To be clear, is that what I find interesting here is that you believe the acts were not supposed to be actualized - despite the fact that the writers themselves engaged in these Laws (literally), and yet you somehow think that you know better what they had meant then they, themselves. When they wrote it! Not YOU! That's some amazing twisting, man. Israelites didn't interpret things at the time of the writing the same way that you do, but you proclaim this special knowledge and mock the rest - kind of ridiculous. Even the writers followed most of these laws, they were societal...so your theory that they were not meant to be practiced falls on its face in that regard.

Especially, to add, that many are just straight up, non-metaphorical laws like "hey, dont kill people."

This "its fiction but it's true" thing is Jordan Peterson-esque - he's been taken down quite handily for it.

 

[hobelim]

So, you agree that those actual practices are ridiculous..I don't do any of those things. I showed a more rational way to understand kosher law that is in accord with what Jesus actually taught as recorded in scripture. .

you got a problem with that?

Of course I do, if you actually believe that god dictated any of these things/teachings/writings or other... then your basis for being reasonable flies right the fuck out of the window with the christ crackerers, but yours is worse... you hold onto one piece of magic and dismiss the rest under the argument that believing in magic is ridiculous. You're starting to self-realize your hypocrisy here. That's a feat, the morning discussion wasn't a wash!

you say that if I believed so and so, (but I don't) and then make all these ridiculous conclusions based on a lie you might as well be jerking off in a public park on a sunday afternoon

False - you have stated your belief verbatim - as I described it.

"teaching from God"
"helping me to prove the wisdom of God in giving the command"

I said you believed the command came from God. I was correct.


Now, in parenthesis in this very post, you said "I don't."


Your comprehension is either less than remarkable, or you don't even realize that you're contradicting yourself when you do it. Quit tripping over your dick to avoid your hypocrisy, it's there and in quotations

Likie I said, way back when, God is an actual character in the book. he says this or that.

To be clear, is that what I find interesting here is that you believe the acts were not supposed to be actualized - despite the fact that the writers themselves engaged in these Laws (literally), and yet you somehow think that you know better what they had meant then they, themselves. When they wrote it! Not YOU! That's some amazing twisting, man. Israelites didn't interpret things at the time of the writing the same way that you do, but you proclaim this special knowledge and mock the rest - kind of ridiculous. Even the writers followed most of these laws, they were societal...so your theory that they were not meant to be practiced falls on its face in that regard.

Especially, to add, that many are just straight up, non-metaphorical laws like "hey, dont kill people."

This "its fiction but it's true" thing is Jordan Peterson-esque - he's been taken down quite handily for it.

As can be seen in the dead sea scroll Manuel of Discipline, there was secret teaching hidden in the law that was never written down and held back from comprehension from the general laity and only shared among the special initiates.

Thats part of the reason that Jesus was hated so much. He was revealing secrets during the time when Belial held sway. They saw it as treason, Jesus saw it as obedience to God; the law was supposed to be a light to the nations, not a secret hidden from them


When these men have undergone, with blamelessness of conduct, a two year preparation in the fundamentals of the community, they shall be segregated as especially sacred among the formal members of the community. Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.

Of religious discussion.

No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].

 

[G.T.]

Of course I do, if you actually believe that god dictated any of these things/teachings/writings or other... then your basis for being reasonable flies right the fuck out of the window with the christ crackerers, but yours is worse... you hold onto one piece of magic and dismiss the rest under the argument that believing in magic is ridiculous. You're starting to self-realize your hypocrisy here. That's a feat, the morning discussion wasn't a wash!

you say that if I believed so and so, (but I don't) and then make all these ridiculous conclusions based on a lie you might as well be jerking off in a public park on a sunday afternoon

False - you have stated your belief verbatim - as I described it.

"teaching from God"
"helping me to prove the wisdom of God in giving the command"

I said you believed the command came from God. I was correct.


Now, in parenthesis in this very post, you said "I don't."


Your comprehension is either less than remarkable, or you don't even realize that you're contradicting yourself when you do it. Quit tripping over your dick to avoid your hypocrisy, it's there and in quotations

Likie I said, way back when, God is an actual character in the book. he says this or that.

To be clear, is that what I find interesting here is that you believe the acts were not supposed to be actualized - despite the fact that the writers themselves engaged in these Laws (literally), and yet you somehow think that you know better what they had meant then they, themselves. When they wrote it! Not YOU! That's some amazing twisting, man. Israelites didn't interpret things at the time of the writing the same way that you do, but you proclaim this special knowledge and mock the rest - kind of ridiculous. Even the writers followed most of these laws, they were societal...so your theory that they were not meant to be practiced falls on its face in that regard.

Especially, to add, that many are just straight up, non-metaphorical laws like "hey, dont kill people."

This "its fiction but it's true" thing is Jordan Peterson-esque - he's been taken down quite handily for it.

As can be seen in the dead sea scroll there was secret teaching hidden in the law that was never written down and held back from comprehension from the general laity only shared among the special initiates.


When these men have undergone, with blamelessness of conduct, a two year preparation in the fundamentals of the community, they shall be segregated as especially sacred among the formal members of the community. Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.

Of religious discussion.

No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].

Law, to begin with, is secular. Laws of fairy tales have their usage, some good and some bad - and they come from secular society as well. When your laws are grounded in a lie about a deity - your books are most-worthy of a meh - - - - but here and to this day, the gullibility of humanity shines. The age of information is fixing these things, and humanity is headed in the right direction.

 

[hobelim]

you say that if I believed so and so, (but I don't) and then make all these ridiculous conclusions based on a lie you might as well be jerking off in a public park on a sunday afternoon

False - you have stated your belief verbatim - as I described it.

"teaching from God"
"helping me to prove the wisdom of God in giving the command"

I said you believed the command came from God. I was correct.


Now, in parenthesis in this very post, you said "I don't."


Your comprehension is either less than remarkable, or you don't even realize that you're contradicting yourself when you do it. Quit tripping over your dick to avoid your hypocrisy, it's there and in quotations

Likie I said, way back when, God is an actual character in the book. he says this or that.

To be clear, is that what I find interesting here is that you believe the acts were not supposed to be actualized - despite the fact that the writers themselves engaged in these Laws (literally), and yet you somehow think that you know better what they had meant then they, themselves. When they wrote it! Not YOU! That's some amazing twisting, man. Israelites didn't interpret things at the time of the writing the same way that you do, but you proclaim this special knowledge and mock the rest - kind of ridiculous. Even the writers followed most of these laws, they were societal...so your theory that they were not meant to be practiced falls on its face in that regard.

Especially, to add, that many are just straight up, non-metaphorical laws like "hey, dont kill people."

This "its fiction but it's true" thing is Jordan Peterson-esque - he's been taken down quite handily for it.

As can be seen in the dead sea scroll there was secret teaching hidden in the law that was never written down and held back from comprehension from the general laity only shared among the special initiates.


When these men have undergone, with blamelessness of conduct, a two year preparation in the fundamentals of the community, they shall be segregated as especially sacred among the formal members of the community. Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.

Of religious discussion.

No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].

Law, to begin with, is secular. Laws of fairy tales have their usage, some good and some bad - and they come from secular society as well. When your laws are grounded in a lie about a deity - your books are most-worthy of a meh - - - - but here and to this day, the gullibility of humanity shines. The age of information is fixing these things, and humanity is headed in the right direction.

So what.Thats you.

I was more interested in discovering the big secret so I dug around until I found it and its huge.

 

[G.T.]

False - you have stated your belief verbatim - as I described it.

"teaching from God"
"helping me to prove the wisdom of God in giving the command"

I said you believed the command came from God. I was correct.


Now, in parenthesis in this very post, you said "I don't."


Your comprehension is either less than remarkable, or you don't even realize that you're contradicting yourself when you do it. Quit tripping over your dick to avoid your hypocrisy, it's there and in quotations

Likie I said, way back when, God is an actual character in the book. he says this or that.

To be clear, is that what I find interesting here is that you believe the acts were not supposed to be actualized - despite the fact that the writers themselves engaged in these Laws (literally), and yet you somehow think that you know better what they had meant then they, themselves. When they wrote it! Not YOU! That's some amazing twisting, man. Israelites didn't interpret things at the time of the writing the same way that you do, but you proclaim this special knowledge and mock the rest - kind of ridiculous. Even the writers followed most of these laws, they were societal...so your theory that they were not meant to be practiced falls on its face in that regard.

Especially, to add, that many are just straight up, non-metaphorical laws like "hey, dont kill people."

This "its fiction but it's true" thing is Jordan Peterson-esque - he's been taken down quite handily for it.

As can be seen in the dead sea scroll there was secret teaching hidden in the law that was never written down and held back from comprehension from the general laity only shared among the special initiates.


When these men have undergone, with blamelessness of conduct, a two year preparation in the fundamentals of the community, they shall be segregated as especially sacred among the formal members of the community. Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.

Of religious discussion.

No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].

Law, to begin with, is secular. Laws of fairy tales have their usage, some good and some bad - and they come from secular society as well. When your laws are grounded in a lie about a deity - your books are most-worthy of a meh - - - - but here and to this day, the gullibility of humanity shines. The age of information is fixing these things, and humanity is headed in the right direction.

So what.Thats you.

I was more interested in discovering the big secret.

What you interpret as the, or a, big secret, and there's a difference.

There's a sucker born every minute. Like I said, you envy the wisdom and hand-wash the barbarism at the same time. Ethics are developed via simple cause and effect - you're stuck in an envy of an incoherent ethic.

 

[hobelim]

Likie I said, way back when, God is an actual character in the book. he says this or that.

To be clear, is that what I find interesting here is that you believe the acts were not supposed to be actualized - despite the fact that the writers themselves engaged in these Laws (literally), and yet you somehow think that you know better what they had meant then they, themselves. When they wrote it! Not YOU! That's some amazing twisting, man. Israelites didn't interpret things at the time of the writing the same way that you do, but you proclaim this special knowledge and mock the rest - kind of ridiculous. Even the writers followed most of these laws, they were societal...so your theory that they were not meant to be practiced falls on its face in that regard.

Especially, to add, that many are just straight up, non-metaphorical laws like "hey, dont kill people."

This "its fiction but it's true" thing is Jordan Peterson-esque - he's been taken down quite handily for it.

As can be seen in the dead sea scroll there was secret teaching hidden in the law that was never written down and held back from comprehension from the general laity only shared among the special initiates.


When these men have undergone, with blamelessness of conduct, a two year preparation in the fundamentals of the community, they shall be segregated as especially sacred among the formal members of the community. Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.

Of religious discussion.

No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].

Law, to begin with, is secular. Laws of fairy tales have their usage, some good and some bad - and they come from secular society as well. When your laws are grounded in a lie about a deity - your books are most-worthy of a meh - - - - but here and to this day, the gullibility of humanity shines. The age of information is fixing these things, and humanity is headed in the right direction.

So what.Thats you.

I was more interested in discovering the big secret.

What you interpret as the, or a, big secret, and there's a difference.

There's a sucker born every minute. Like I said, you envy the wisdom and hand-wash the barbarism at the same time. Ethics are developed via simple cause and effect - you're stuck in an envy of an incoherent ethic.

Yeah, its what I interpret and all the pieces fit perfectly.

Thats the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[G.T.]

To be clear, is that what I find interesting here is that you believe the acts were not supposed to be actualized - despite the fact that the writers themselves engaged in these Laws (literally), and yet you somehow think that you know better what they had meant then they, themselves. When they wrote it! Not YOU! That's some amazing twisting, man. Israelites didn't interpret things at the time of the writing the same way that you do, but you proclaim this special knowledge and mock the rest - kind of ridiculous. Even the writers followed most of these laws, they were societal...so your theory that they were not meant to be practiced falls on its face in that regard.

Especially, to add, that many are just straight up, non-metaphorical laws like "hey, dont kill people."

This "its fiction but it's true" thing is Jordan Peterson-esque - he's been taken down quite handily for it.

As can be seen in the dead sea scroll there was secret teaching hidden in the law that was never written down and held back from comprehension from the general laity only shared among the special initiates.


When these men have undergone, with blamelessness of conduct, a two year preparation in the fundamentals of the community, they shall be segregated as especially sacred among the formal members of the community. Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.

Of religious discussion.

No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].

Law, to begin with, is secular. Laws of fairy tales have their usage, some good and some bad - and they come from secular society as well. When your laws are grounded in a lie about a deity - your books are most-worthy of a meh - - - - but here and to this day, the gullibility of humanity shines. The age of information is fixing these things, and humanity is headed in the right direction.

So what.Thats you.

I was more interested in discovering the big secret.

What you interpret as the, or a, big secret, and there's a difference.

There's a sucker born every minute. Like I said, you envy the wisdom and hand-wash the barbarism at the same time. Ethics are developed via simple cause and effect - you're stuck in an envy of an incoherent ethic.

Yeah, its what I interpret and all the pieces fit perfectly.

Thats the way the cookie crumbles.

Especially the parts about how to treat your chattel slaves, as opposed to slavery itself is immoral.

 

[hobelim]

As can be seen in the dead sea scroll there was secret teaching hidden in the law that was never written down and held back from comprehension from the general laity only shared among the special initiates.


When these men have undergone, with blamelessness of conduct, a two year preparation in the fundamentals of the community, they shall be segregated as especially sacred among the formal members of the community. Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.

Of religious discussion.

No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].

Law, to begin with, is secular. Laws of fairy tales have their usage, some good and some bad - and they come from secular society as well. When your laws are grounded in a lie about a deity - your books are most-worthy of a meh - - - - but here and to this day, the gullibility of humanity shines. The age of information is fixing these things, and humanity is headed in the right direction.

So what.Thats you.

I was more interested in discovering the big secret.

What you interpret as the, or a, big secret, and there's a difference.

There's a sucker born every minute. Like I said, you envy the wisdom and hand-wash the barbarism at the same time. Ethics are developed via simple cause and effect - you're stuck in an envy of an incoherent ethic.

Yeah, its what I interpret and all the pieces fit perfectly.

Thats the way the cookie crumbles.

Especially the parts about how to treat your chattel slaves, as opposed to slavery itself is immoral.

Many slaves thousands of years ago were indistinguishable from what we now call employees.

do you have a job?

 

[G.T.]

Law, to begin with, is secular. Laws of fairy tales have their usage, some good and some bad - and they come from secular society as well. When your laws are grounded in a lie about a deity - your books are most-worthy of a meh - - - - but here and to this day, the gullibility of humanity shines. The age of information is fixing these things, and humanity is headed in the right direction.

So what.Thats you.

I was more interested in discovering the big secret.

What you interpret as the, or a, big secret, and there's a difference.

There's a sucker born every minute. Like I said, you envy the wisdom and hand-wash the barbarism at the same time. Ethics are developed via simple cause and effect - you're stuck in an envy of an incoherent ethic.

Yeah, its what I interpret and all the pieces fit perfectly.

Thats the way the cookie crumbles.

Especially the parts about how to treat your chattel slaves, as opposed to slavery itself is immoral.

Many slaves back then were indistinguishable from what we now call employees.

You're hand-washing again, but it sucks for you that that's a failed argument on SO many levels. There are a LOT of specifics which you wouldn't want anyone to go ahead and take literally, albeit history does. What the fuck is it that you could possibly think fits, when the book bounces from metaphor/story of fiction, to things that ACTUALLY happened, and were commanded? In and of itself, that's an internal incoherence...and sort of why you're forcing yourself to rationalize and hand-wash the morality of chattel slavery. Imposed at birth, for many. Ew.

You're faced with the fact that your uber secret decoder ring ethics weren't very stellar - mostly barbaric by today's standards...and you also probably attribute the ethics to the writers and their people whereas they merely came from just living.

 

[Mindful]

Law, to begin with, is secular. Laws of fairy tales have their usage, some good and some bad - and they come from secular society as well. When your laws are grounded in a lie about a deity - your books are most-worthy of a meh - - - - but here and to this day, the gullibility of humanity shines. The age of information is fixing these things, and humanity is headed in the right direction.

So what.Thats you.

I was more interested in discovering the big secret.

What you interpret as the, or a, big secret, and there's a difference.

There's a sucker born every minute. Like I said, you envy the wisdom and hand-wash the barbarism at the same time. Ethics are developed via simple cause and effect - you're stuck in an envy of an incoherent ethic.

Yeah, its what I interpret and all the pieces fit perfectly.

Thats the way the cookie crumbles.

Especially the parts about how to treat your chattel slaves, as opposed to slavery itself is immoral.

Many slaves thousands of years ago were indistinguishable from what we now call employees.

do you have a job?

I was thinking about that the other day. Not much has changed.

 

[DOTR]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

How about those instances that are left to interpretation? Ex: Parable of the Good Samaritan. Priest and Levite pass by on the other side, but we are left to figure out why, not that it matters because the Bible infers that they are both exhibiting that opposite of love called indifference and become the bad guys. But I'm thinking they both told themselves very valid excuses for not stopping and convinced themselves they were blameless for passing by on the other side. Priests had to be 'clean' to serve the temple, and if the injured man was dead, the priest would have had to go thru a cleansing process. Or maybe the man was pretending injury and would draw the Levite while his buddies jumped out of the bushes and robbed him. I have thought of this often in my own life, how I rationalize doing or not doing, and it resonates again when I hear the reasons we reject desperate immigrants... and like the sentencing of people who leave water in the scalding desert.

Bullwinkle

You got lost in the shuffle.

When reading the Bible we should look at it from God's perspective not our own flawed, human perspective.

If you catch yourself thinking in terms of, "if I was God", then any interpretation which stems from that perspective is probably erroneous.

Thank you for your response, but I thought I was looking at it from God's perspective. My point is that the Bible does not say why the priest and levite passed by on the other side rather than stop to help the injured man. I merely pointed out that they may have rationalized what they considered very good reasons for their inaction, but the excuses are not recorded simply because no excuse is acceptable to God. It is only recorded that they did not stop, and they are condemned for it.

And so, because the Bible is a living guideline, I can relate this non-recorded rationale of the passers-by to today's events. And an example is the caravans fleeing terror. When I see people who are helpless at home to protect themselves and their families painted as they are today in our nation, and listen to the excuses for rejecting their pleas, I think of this parable of our Lord. If I cannot make those parables a living guideline, what good are they?

So in your mind you change the parable to “a government passed by and didn’t seize money from its citizens to help the Samaritan”?

 

[DOTR]

Sin is simply disobedience to the perfect will of God.

As religious people we live by faith.

Faith is expressed when we receive the perfect will of God through the prompting of the Holy Spirit and we respond and do God's will.

There were many reasons by which we as humans can rationalize and agree with the two men who passed by and didn't help. Ultimately it's not this human decision for which they are being called out here.

They are being called out here because it was God's will that they help and they disobeyed the perfect will of God, spiritually.

The challenge with using the parables as living guidelines is this, they are not providing a list of what to do and what not to do, because as you have correctly pointed out that decision can be situation specific.

They are showing us that if we follow God's lead (accept his Lordship in our lives), rather than our fear or some other human failing, our decisions will always be the right ones.

If you want to use the parables as living guidelines, then seek God's direction in your life and then do what HE says when prompted.

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”

11 He answered and said to them, “Because mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.