Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zaro

Biblical contradictions for the purpose of manipulation

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, harryramar said:

the problem with taking the bible literally is that it obscures the message the ancients wanted to convey.

those who call themselves Christians say the bible is the literal inerrant word of god, until it gets to " thou shalt not kill" and then the excuses fly fast and thick as to what it rally means.

what is hard to grasp?

then from the other side we have people who use the same literal translation to say it all makes no sense, and they are correct .

it is absurd to assign a literal translation to esoteric writings from thousands of years ago in obscure language among people know for their use of symbolism and allegory.

 

If the Bible were indeed the word of God, why are there inconsistencies and outright contradictions? Answer me this: How many books of life are there? One or two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zaro said:

 

If the Bible were indeed the word of God, why are there inconsistencies and outright contradictions? Answer me this: How many books of life are there? One or two?

I don't believe the bible is the word of god, rather it is the word of inspired men who somehow knew about the workings of spiritual law and the law of cause and effect and couched their writings around historical figures which personified psychological states.

where they attained their knowledge I know not, possibly from aliens from distant galaxies, maybe from the survivors of long lost civilizations. at any rate the knowledge survived the wrath of nutjobs like Irenaeus who decreed Gnosticism to be heresy as well as others

 eminent gents when the march towards ignorance began as church and state consolidated political power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Often moral precepts were not taken seriously in practice.

 

The ancient Hebrews were moralists more than most other people's of their time.  However, these morals could be applied very unevenly.  The 6th commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" is a sweeping commandment and yet the Hebrews were at war much of the time.   Killing was common. 

 

A breach of the 7th commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" could result in stoning to death and yet the Bible states King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.  Biblical text does not criticize him for this.  So then, as now, power tended to exempt one from rules which applied to lesser persons.

 

In the Bible, it is almost as if rules were made to be broken.  And contradictory Biblical language reflects that. When one wants to have it both, or more ways, it's handy to have stated every case for citing after the fact. 

 

Although the ancient Hebrews were advanced in theoretical morality, they were not, in any way, students of logic.  Evidently they saw contradictory statements as expedient and even clever, as a way to justify questionable practices, later on.  Judging by the Bible, contradictions were not disapproved of, in Hebrew culture because logic was not applied to theory.

 

This state of affairs can look quite bizarre, by today's standards.  Large numbers of contemporary people have embraced standards of verifiable evidence and empirical thought.  But others, like the Christian Fundamentalists, still see the world from a Biblical point of view.  They are still steeped in the ancient standards of the Bible which enables them to largely disregard contradictions.  It glaringly, allows them to advocate a radically different version of Christianity than the teachings of Jesus.  They can support a morally bankrupt leader like Trump while still inveighing against adultery.  And so forth.

 

The roots of an ancient past die hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, harryramar said:

I don't believe the bible is the word of god, rather it is the word of inspired men who somehow knew about the workings of spiritual law and the law of cause and effect and couched their writings around historical figures which personified psychological states.

where they attained their knowledge I know not, possibly from aliens from distant galaxies, maybe from the survivors of long lost civilizations. at any rate the knowledge survived the wrath of nutjobs like Irenaeus who decreed Gnosticism to be heresy as well as others

 eminent gents when the march towards ignorance began as church and state consolidated political power

 

And what is this sublime knowledge that only bronze age men had? How virgin birth works? 

Since the virgin birth was only a one-time phenomenon, what good is knowing about it for all of mankind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Zaro said:

 

And what is this sublime knowledge that only bronze age men had? How virgin birth works? 

Since the virgin birth was only a one-time phenomenal, what good is knowing about it for all of mankind?

The knowledge was widespread and taught in the mystery schools from Persia to Egypt . It was so widespread that the church banned it as heresy.

the virgin birth is the story of you and how you bring forth the Christ, the inner man who is the manifestation of god in you.

you give birth to the Christ without the aid of man

this answers the question posed by the scribes as to how davids father could be his son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, harryramar said:

the problem with taking the bible literally is that it obscures the message the ancients wanted to convey.

 

it is absurd to assign a literal translation to esoteric writings from thousands of years ago in obscure language among people know for their use of symbolism and allegory.

 

Fine. Let's not take it literally.

Let's interpret it. You'll interpret it your way.  I'll interpret it my way.  Multiply by 7.6 billion.

Some influential f**kheads will have opinions to which millions adhere.

Some influential f**kheads will promulgate opinions in which they have no personal interest, only for the sake of money and power.

Some influential f**kheads will convince other f**kheads to fight wars or fly planes into buildings for the sake of their stupid opinions.

 

Religion is evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, harryramar said:

The knowledge was widespread and taught in the mystery schools from Persia to Egypt .

the virgin birth is the story of you and how you bring forth the Christ, the inner man who is the manifestation of god in you.

 

My edits above are to remove what is only a name, and to highlight what you're talking about, not to change your meaning.

 

Prove that such a thing as god exists and that you can bring forth such a thing.

Prove that such a thing as an inner man.

 

Of what are these things composed. How much do they weigh? When you "bring forth the inner man who is the manifestation" of that thing whose existence you assert without proof ... what use has this thing had in the world?

 

Has it had as much use as, say, the understanding of fermentation, or the understanding of the Calculus, or an automobile?

 

Pah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, laripu said:

 

My edits above are to remove what is only a name, and to highlight what you're talking about, not to change your meaning.

 

Prove that such a thing as god exists and that you can bring forth such a thing.

Prove that such a thing as an inner man.

 

Of what are these things composed. How much do they weigh? When you "bring forth the inner man who is the manifestation" of that thing whose existence you assert without proof ... what use has this thing had in the world?

 

Has it had as much use as, say, the understanding of fermentation, or the understanding of the Calculus, or an automobile?

 

Pah.

I won't try to convince you to believe what I believe that's a waste of time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, harryramar said:

I won't try to convince you to believe what I believe that's a waste of time

 

Naturally. And what you say here is true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Zaro said:

And what is this sublime knowledge that only bronze age men had?

 

The learned people of that time were probably very good at knowing what wild plants were wholesome. They probably all knew how to butcher an animal. Those skills are now known to only a minority. 

 

They thought they knew something about god or gods, but they actually knew nothing about such things because there are no such things. They chose explanations in ignorance.

 

To some extent we probably do the same, choosing plausible physics explanations that will later turn out to be mere approximations, subtly wrong. The difference is that our explanations, even when imperfect approximations of aspects of reality, yield useful results.

 

God yields no useful results except to tv evangelists' back accounts.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually God is very large man with popping muscles in his arms and a beard.  He can often be found floating overhead, backed up by His angels, who's muscles are slightly smaller, pointing His finger accusingly at something.

 

When the earliest groups of hunter-gatherers  started planting crops , domesticating animals, and building permanent edifices, their religion was invariably animism.  Every rock, tree, animal natural feature had a spirit.  Theirs was a spirit-driven world.  Gradually, with the rise of authoritarian hierarchies, religion changed to pantheons of gods, reflecting the new governmental order.  So-called monotheism merely placed a top god at the head of the other immortals, reflecting the growing, absolute power of monarchs. 

 

The Hebrews invented God and his angels, but it was only a small jump from the pantheon religions.  What made  the Hebrews stand out, in that early time, was the chronicle they kept of their history, as they saw it.  This includes the Torah.  Only a small fraction is actual history, as we know it.  Much is the superstition that was their religion.  Much was moralizing.  Some parts are artful:  Psalm 23 was then, and continues to be one of the greatest pieces of prose ever written.

 

In times when most people could not read or write, the written word was powerful magic.  The Bible, today, is extremely useful to historians and is very helpful in understanding not just the Hebrews, but early iron-age people in general.  But the Bible, as useful a document as it is, should not be taken as having any supernatural power today.  It is a valuable window into the past.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

atheist logic : the Christians say the earth is only 5000 yars old, we can prove it is much older, therefore there cannot possibly be a god. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, harryramar said:

atheist logic : the Christians say the earth is only 5000 yars old, we can prove it is much older, therefore there cannot possibly be a god. LOL

 

That's so obviously a gross misrepresentation! It is an example of strawman reasoning.

More correctly, atheist logic:

1. the Christians say the earth is less than 10,000 years old, we can prove it is much older, therefore this book cannot be literally true.

2. If it is not literally true, it isn't what fundamentalists say it is. And anyone can say anything they want about it, because no interpretation is factual.

3. The same is true of any religious book written by ignorant people in antiquity.

 

Replying in kind, another strawman, 

Believer's logic: I'll interpret this nonsense the way I want to, therefore it is true. Kill the non-believers! Kill the infidels! Burn them and their books! Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil,  because those concentration camps aren't killing my family! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, laripu said:

 

That's so obviously a gross misrepresentation! It is an example of strawman reasoning.

More correctly, atheist logic:

1. the Christians say the earth is less than 10,000 years old, we can prove it is much older, therefore this book cannot be literally true.

2. If it is not literally true, it isn't what fundamentalists say it is. And anyone can say anything they want about it, because no interpretation is factual.

3. The same is true of any religious book written by ignorant people in antiquity.

 

Replying in kind, another strawman, 

Believer's logic: I'll interpret this nonsense the way I want to, therefore it is true. Kill the non-believers! Kill the infidels! Burn them and their books! Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, those concentration camps aren't killing my family! 

jesus buddy get a Bad wording grip, it was a joke. 

 

scientists logic: there can't be a god or any higher intelligence in the other than earthlings  because I have never seen it so it cannot exist and that makes me one of the smartest people in the universe. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, laripu said:

 

The learned people of that time were probably very good at knowing what wild plants were wholesome. They probably all knew how to butcher an animal. Those skills are now known to only a minority. 

 

They thought they knew something about god or gods, but they actually knew nothing about such things because there are no such things. They chose explanations in ignorance.

 

To some extent we probably do the same, choosing plausible physics explanations that will later turn out to be mere approximations, subtly wrong. The difference is that our explanations, even when imperfect approximations of aspects of reality, yield useful results.

 

God yields no useful results except to tv evangelists' back accounts.

 

 

 

The learned,  wise men of that time were  struggling.  Their world had really come to an end with the occupation  of the Romans.  Their God didn't  show up to defeat the hated enemy.  But some guy named Jesus,  who explained somewhat why God left em in the lurch.  Sin and stuff.  And not to view  life as the real life,  cause that was lousy under the Romans but that the real life was really  after death and stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zaro said:

 

The learned,  wise men of that time were  struggling.  Their world had really come to an end with the occupation  of the Romans.  Their God didn't  show up to defeat the hated enemy.  But some guy named Jesus,  who explained somewhat why God left em in the lurch.  Sin and stuff.  And not to view  life as the real life,  cause that was lousy under the Romans but that the real life was really  after death and stuff. 

actually jesus said that the religious leaders of the time that you describe were full of shit and teaching lies.

jesus taught that god is within and you have access to god through the power of your belief.

there is not a church in the world that preaches that because then there would be no need for the church.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, harryramar said:

jesus buddy get a Bad wording grip, it was a joke.

 

I'm most definitely not your "jesus buddy". :lol:

 

You say "joke", and I say "strawman slander". It's also an alt-right tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, laripu said:

 

I'm most definitely not your "jesus buddy". :lol:

 

You say "joke", and I say "strawman slander". It's also an alt-right tactic.

you are not very astute. I am very liberal and I am not a christian so I don't; want you as a jesus buddy , trust me

. zaro asked a question and I opined. you seem to have a strong need to convince others that there is no god.

and it is a joke that people like you , earthlings on some tiny speck of dust in the middle of nowhere claim with certitude that god cannot possibly exist because you have not seen him. 

that is pretty funny stuff if you think about it.

it reminds me of some woman back in the 80s who billed herself as the world's smartest woman. she assured us that there were no such thing as intelligent life in the universe that could actually come here because that would mean she isn't that smart in the big scheme of things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, harryramar said:

earthlings on some tiny speck of dust in the middle of nowhere claim with certitude

 

That is the problem.  We are unimaginably small in an incalculably large and complex universe ...  Which, most likely is one of trillions of universes like soap suds.  Having evolved on this tiny speck, our senses are incredibly limited, even when extended by optical telescopes, radio telescopes, infra red and ultra violet sensing telescopes, and so forth.  We cannot see nor have we invented instruments to detect dark matter, dark energy and countless different types of sub-atomic particles in the quantum realm.  Including types that surely exist, but we don't yet know about.

 

So how can we comprehend God(s)?  I suspect that if there is a creator, our intellect including all our computers, and our senses are far too limited to begin to understand.  And where did it spring from?  And so on, endlessly.

 

But I am sure of this:  There is no such thing as the God of the Bible, Koran or any other fictional religious work.  And, except for the historical value, all of them are fiction.  The only way god reveals itself to us, if such is the case, is through our earthly and celestial surroundings, and through what has come before;  All of which are being studied by scientists, in many fields, every day.  Only through the continued application of science and with the help of steadily improving computers, will we find the nature of God.  It may take thousands of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, harryramar said:

you seem to have a strong need to convince others that there is no god.

 

Sure, yes, I do, absolutely.  That's because my family and my tribe have been victimized for many centuries by people whose belief in god made them murder those who didn't share it. Belief in god has been and is hazardous to my family. And not only my tribe and my family, but just about everyone's tribe and family. The list of atrocities in the name of religion goes back as far as there's ever been religion.  Religion is evil.

 

9 hours ago, harryramar said:

and it is a joke that people like you , earthlings on some tiny speck of dust in the middle of nowhere claim with certitude that god cannot possibly exist because you have not seen him. 

 

It's not because I haven't seen a god.

 

It's because of the very nature of the way the words are used. Like the phrase "I have a pain in your knee", the phrases "god exist" and "god does not exist" carry no meaning despite being grammatical.

 

We learn to understand a word by abstracting meaning from multiple contexts in the use of that word. For example, a child (with normal sight) learns what 'red" means by hearing the same color referred to as red. The child might get confused and think pink is a kind of red. (I did that at a very young age.) But once told "no, that's pink" the child can abstract out the meaning properly. But multiple contexts are needed.

 

The problem with the word 'exists', when used for god, is that there is only the single context. Look at how we use 'exists' in other contexts:

  • The chair exists.
  • The square root of -1 exists.

Neither of those contexts are how anyone using the word god would want god to exist. No-one conceives of god like a chair, finite in space and time. No-one conceives of god like a mere abstract thing in a theoretical framework created by people.

 

In fact, everyone's conception of god is as a unique entity, unlike everything else. (Of course: nothing else is like god to anyone who believes in god.) Therefore there is only one context in which the word 'exists' is used, as it is used for 'god', and that's in the very phrase 'god exists'; there's no other context because the god everyone wants is unique. There's no way to abstract out meaning from a single context.

 

That's the problem, and that's why there's nothing even close to an objective way to understand that phrase. All assertions about god are nonsense, because the very first assertion is nonsense.

 

So a person doesn't really have to know anything except how we learn to use language ... to know that when someone asserts the existence of god it's BS.

 

And your use of the phrase "it is a joke that people like you, earthlings on some tiny speck of dust in the middle of nowhere" is meant to belittle; and therefore I don't accept it. And if you continue to assert it, I turn it back on you and say that "it is a joke that a person like you, an earthling on some tiny speck of dust in the middle of nowhere" wants to make a big assertion about god without yet having provided any evidence.

 

Vague talk about ancients doesn't constitute evidence. Evidence, man!  Where is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, harryramar said:

actually jesus said that the religious leaders of the time that you describe were full of shit and teaching lies.

jesus taught that god is within and you have access to god through the power of your belief.

there is not a church in the world that preaches that because then there would be no need for the church.

 

Because the religious leaders (the only leaders at that time) were collaborating with the Romans. Jews were used to their God stepping up to the plate and helping his people in their time of need. They attributed their previous victories to him. But the Romans proved to strong for their God. That was the opening for Jesus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, harryramar said:

I am very liberal

 

From what I have seen in NHB, you are not only very liberal but also one of the most resourceful and effective voices on the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bludog said:

 

That is the problem.  We are unimaginably small in an incalculably large and complex universe ...  Which, most likely is one of trillions of universes like soap suds.  Having evolved on this tiny speck, our senses are incredibly limited, even when extended by optical telescopes, radio telescopes, infra red and ultra violet sensing telescopes, and so forth.  We cannot see nor have we invented instruments to detect dark matter, dark energy and countless different types of sub-atomic particles in the quantum realm.  Including types that surely exist, but we don't yet know about.

 

So how can we comprehend God(s)?  I suspect that if there is a creator, our intellect including all our computers, and our senses are far too limited to begin to understand.  And where did it spring from?  And so on, endlessly.

 

But I am sure of this:  There is no such thing as the God of the Bible, Koran or any other fictional religious work.  And, except for the historical value, all of them are fiction.  The only way god reveals itself to us, if such is the case, is through our earthly and celestial surroundings, and through what has come before;  All of which are being studied by scientists, in many fields, every day.  Only through the continued application of science and with the help of steadily improving computers, will we find the nature of God.  It may take thousands of years.

I agree that the god of the bible as defined by Christian dogma is non existent and could not possible exist. here is why..for god to be god he has to b universal which means there is nothing outside of god. Christian dogma worships a god outside of his creation which means there is god plus something else which means he is not universal.

they also worship jesus as a cult of personality while disregarding the message he brought.

I also don't believe jesus actually lived but is an amalgamation of other religions personified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, laripu said:

 

Sure, yes, I do, absolutely.  That's because my family and my tribe have been victimized for many centuries by people whose belief in god made them murder those who didn't share it. Belief in god has been and is hazardous to my family. And not only my tribe and my family, but just about everyone's tribe and family. The list of atrocities in the name of religion goes back as far as there's ever been religion.  Religion is evil.

 

 

It's not because I haven't seen a god.

 

It's because of the very nature of the way the words are used. Like the phrase "I have a pain in your knee", the phrases "god exist" and "god does not exist" carry no meaning despite being grammatical.

 

We learn to understand a word by abstracting meaning from multiple contexts in the use of that word. For example, a child (with normal sight) learns what 'red" means by hearing the same color referred to as red. The child might get confused and think pink is a kind of red. (I did that at a very young age.) But once told "no, that's pink" the child can abstract out the meaning properly. But multiple contexts are needed.

 

The problem with the word 'exists', when used for god, is that there is only the single context. Look at how we use 'exists' in other contexts:

  • The chair exists.
  • The square root of -1 exists.

Neither of those contexts are how anyone using the word god would want god to exist. No-one conceives of god like a chair, finite in space and time. No-one conceives of god like a mere abstract thing in a theoretical framework created by people.

 

In fact, everyone's conception of god is as a unique entity, unlike everything else. (Of course: nothing else is like god to anyone who believes in god.) Therefore there is only one context in which the word 'exists' is used, as it is used for 'god', and that's in the very phrase 'god exists'; there's no other context because the god everyone wants is unique. There's no way to abstract out meaning from a single context.

 

That's the problem, and that's why there's nothing even close to an objective way to understand that phrase. All assertions about god are nonsense, because the very first assertion is nonsense.

 

So a person doesn't really have to know anything except how we learn to use language ... to know that when someone asserts the existence of god it's BS.

 

And your use of the phrase "it is a joke that people like you, earthlings on some tiny speck of dust in the middle of nowhere" is meant to belittle; and therefore I don't accept it. And if you continue to assert it, I turn it back on you and say that "it is a joke that a person like you, an earthling on some tiny speck of dust in the middle of nowhere" wants to make a big assertion about god without yet having provided any evidence.

 

Vague talk about ancients doesn't constitute evidence. Evidence, man!  Where is it?

iit wasn't meant to belittle , it was meant to put things in context. as small as we are in th grand scheme of things it seems to me to be an absurdity to pronounce with certitude there is no power higher than the mighty earthling. if you took offense I assure you it wasn't personal or meant to offend.

also sorry that your family had to suffer persecution at the hands of those who don't know any better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, harryramar said:

iit wasn't meant to belittle , it was meant to put things in context. as small as we are in th grand scheme of things it seems to me to be an absurdity to pronounce with certitude there is no power higher than the mighty earthling. if you took offense I assure you it wasn't personal or meant to offend.

also sorry that your family had to suffer persecution at the hands of those who don't know any better.

 

 

I accept that you didn't mean it to belittle. But also I didn't assert that there was no higher power than earthlings. The jury is still out on technologically advanced beings from other planets, or other natural forms of intelligence.

 

What I do assert, confidently, is that language and how we use it can't support meaning in the phrase 'god exists', when referring to a singular entity that purportedly created the universe. The phrase is grammatical but meaningless, like "I have a pain in your knee."

 

You had some ideas of 'god within you', a possibly different linguistic use of the word.

 

Can you elucidate in a way that gives hard evidence, that gives reproducible uses for that knowledge (if indeed it's knowledge), and that is falsifiable? (By 'falsifiable', I mean testable for truth/falsehood.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...