The most significant contradiction or inconcistency?

[shnarkle]

There are no shortage of online sites providing numerous examples of contradictions and inconsistencies from the biblical texts. While some of these are quite simply the result of poor reading comprehension skills or an unfamiliarity with the texts, others seem legitimate. Many of those that are legitimate are inconsequential, but some could be quite controversial and may have significant ramifications.

Of all the contradictions found in scripture, which ones could prove to be most disturbing, or have the most serious ramifications for "believers"?


One that I think fits this bill is Paul's view on eating food sacrificed to false gods. He doesn't seem to have a problem with it if it doesn't have a negative effect over a fellow believer's faith. While I can see his point, and also agree that none of those pagan deities are real, I do wonder how he is able to disregard the law which he upholds; a law that forbids eating anything that is sacrificed to idols.

The reason this could be looked at as disturbing is because it indicates to me that Paul has attributed capriciousness to Paul's God.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 75 by shnarkle]

Yes but there is no commentary as to how A contradicts B. They are just presented and we are expected to accept the axiom. In other words in order to build a valid argument one must present

A MUST mean xxx.
B MUST mean yyy.
Since X and Y be CANNOT be reconciled we have a contradiction.

• However, any attempt to present the above as fact will inevitably fall at the first hurdle: "A means xxx" according to your interpretation which is one of many which are possible.

While many interpretations are possible, this doesn't negate the possibility that their interpretation is, as you point out; lacking sufficient evidence. Moreover, if you can provide an interpreation that refutes his interpretation, and he can't refute yours, then you win.

It is impossible to prove there is no other possible way of interpreting a given scripture

Again, this is irrelevant as no one is disputing the numerous interpretations possible, only the two opposing ones being discussed.

thus there is usually no way to present a true (rather than a presumed) contradiction.

Fallacy of begging the question. Numerous interpreations don't negate the fact that one of them can be true. Your assumption presumes that truth can't even really be presented. How can one interpret the texts truly at all when there are so many interpretations?

Even a statment such as "Snow is black" can be taken in a non-literal sense. Who's to say that the "snow" here refers to the Devil's snow which is indeed presented as "black"?

if it is presented as black then it is being presented literally. If it is being presented figuratively then one necessarily will have to present which figures is being used to support their claim.

In short there are usually too many variables in scripture to offer anything but opinion.

JW

Therefore scripture cannot present the truth; just opinion? OR are you saying that regardless of what the scripture presents, whoever reads it will be able to present only their opinions? This seems to be what I encountered from the JW's who visited me recently. They started out claiming that I shouldn't take their opinion, but to read the bible myself. Two months later they told me to take their word for it.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 74 by alexxcJRO]

Before I reply to your awesome response to my question put for debate, I would like to address your claims that I am defending the God of the bible. Up until your most recent post you haven't comprehended the intent of this OP or the fact that I am not defending the God of the bible. This is about contradictory or inconsistencies within the texts of the bible by the biblical authors, and I am in no way defending these authors either. As I hope to point out in greater detail in my response, I not only am not defending the God of the bible, it is impossible to do so in the first place. Note also that when I use the terms "we":"us";"humanity"etc. I'm referring to them as the authors view them, not as referring to whoever is reading this post or involved in this discussion. In other words, I'm viewing the texts as a fictional narrative that invites the reader in, but doesn't require us to accept that invitation.

When dealing with contradictions, we need to first address the axiom of non-contradiction. Which means that we can't contradict this principle without apply or presupposing it. In other words, possibility means non-contradiction. Something is intrinsically possible when it is not self-contradictory. An example of a self-contradiction would be a square circle or the square root of 2 is a rational number. If it is not possible to contradict the principle without applying it, then it is not "non-contradictory" to contradict the principle. In other words, it is contradictory to contradict the principle. This is a tautology.

So the quesion becomes one of whether we can convert this axiom into a principle of knowledge. To say what cannot be said, means to say what cannot be meaningfully said. However, this is not to say that everything that is said is all that can be said. Not all can be said, and therefore not all is said especially when it comes to posting two passages that appear to contradict each other.

This can be extended to thinking in that something contradictory cannot be thought because thinking is non contradictory thinking, and contradictory thinking is not thinking. So the axiom of non-contradiction extends to that of "non-contra-thinking", but only insofar as thinking is logical. The fact is that not all is logically thought or even that not all is thought. Some things are ungraspable by the intellect. Examples abound in these debates.

1. God is an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good/morally perfect(benevolent and loving towards all, does not do evil), super wise, just and merciful being.

Let's unpack that because there's more than meets the eye. Omnipotent means all powerful, he can do anything. This is not to say that God would do anything. The biblical God has set aside a Day of Judgement, but he doesn't have to wait until Judgement Day to exercise all judgement; just (excuse the pun) ultimate judgement. So your claim is that God exercises his judgement upon the innocent. The problem with this claim is that the authors already thought of that, and when Paul is writing to Romans who undoubtedly have no familiarity with the Hebrew texts, he clarifies what they say:

5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? Romans 3:5

When Paul says that he speaks as a man, he's pointing out that what we as human beings view as vengeance isn't at all because whatever we attibute to transcendence will never stick. He's pointing out that God is righteous. It's quite simply a given. When presenting a proof, what is given isn't what is being proved. So Paul's conclusion is that God will judge the world, but he doesn't stop there. It isn't just that God will judge the world, but that the whole world is guilty. Here's where your claim that these people were innocent falls apart.

for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: Romans 3:9,10

In the bible, there are Jews (or aka Israelites), and the rest of the world commonly referred to as Gentiles. For Paul that's everyone, and everyone is guilty before God. This is essentially a given as well except that there are reasons provided starting with Lucifer then Adam and Eve's disobedience and continuing on right down to the messiah who turns things around.


Omniscient means "all knowing", and therefore God cannot be known. This fact is so obvious most people never notice it. The characters within the biblical narratives are not omniscient and therefore can't know everything. In fact, what little they do know may be inaccurate, especially when dealing with an infinite, or transcendent God.

Good means that there is no evil in God, but that is only because evil exists. If there were no such thing as evil, this term "good" wouldn't mean anything. When good exists along with evil, there is a standard by which good and evil are determined. That standard can't be made by those who are evil or ignorant in any way. In the biblical narratives that leaves out everyone except God. These authors are quite shrewd, and effective at fixing the game.

Super wise is not a sufficient attribute for God because super is really just another word for "very", and isn't as much as one who is the most wise or one who possesses all wisdom or ultimate wisdom. Therefore God must be omnisagacious. This isn't sufficient either, just a step in the right direction.

and on the other hand we have biblical text that points to:
2. God is a malevolent, capricious, unwise, unjust, unloving, genocidal, infanticidal bully
(
-orders some humans to inflict countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals); to not show mercy and compassion to non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals);
-promises to to inflict countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals);
-inflicts countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals). He burns alive, drowns countless of them. He kills countless of them by plagues, sword either directly or by proxy. He has no mercy for non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals), he punishes them together with the moral agents;

Malevolent means to have evil intent, or to be evil minded. Capricious means that what God does is arbitrary. Unjust and unloving need no elaboration. I don't think you provided any examples of bullying. Jonah was conspicuously absent from your examples. Merely carrying out God's justice isn't bullying. Pestering someone repeatedly to do your bidding could be construed as bullying.

This is why I think the story of Jonah is the closest thing to Bullying in the biblical texts. However, the texts also indicate that God also chastens those he loves which might require some persuasion or bullying. One could argue that God is bullying Pharaoh, but it is Pharaoh who isn't complying with God. His ignorance is no excuse. This is a rule of law that was taken straight from the biblical texts, and placed within the US judicial system e.g. "Ignorance of the law is not a defense"

Omniscient:
"Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite."
"in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things."

This is within a greater context dealing with a fundamental distinction between those who are sinful and those who are innocent. This is probably one of the fundamental principles of your argument so we need to look at what the text is saying.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

The biblical texts point out who is "born of God". Examples include Adam and Eve; the sons of god, i.e. his angelic messengers, including Lucifer who later became Satan; and lastly those who are "born again". John isn't referring to any of those except those who are born again. He's addressing the church, not Adam, Satan, etc. The difference being that they were originlly born into sin THEN born again. The bible begins with everything being good, and then things get progressively worse, while the trip back begins with a new birth back to perfect sinlessness.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

So as those who are born of God are manifest, they manifest God's will. Everyone else is still under the condemnation of God. They don't have to do anything wrong or evil for this to be the case as evil only produces evil, and all of humanity is evil according to the biblical narratives. They {i.e.Adam and Eve) weren't created evil, but chose evil. This is where Paul's comments to the Ephesians are pertinent as well.

by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works lest any man boast.

In other words, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to get on God's good side. Contrary to popular opinion, repentance, claiming or confessing God as your lord and savior, getting baptized, etc. are worthless until AFTER God chooses them according to his will and time frame.

Now an argument could be made that God isn't being fair to Adam and Eve's descendents in that he's punishing them for something that they didn't do. On the surface this seems like a fair argument, but this isn't the case. Transgressing God's law is essentially and effectively a death sentence on all humanity. It's like the fallout from a nuclear reaction. There are pollutants that rearrange dna, and those changes remain in their descendants for the next few thousand years. With the violation of God's law, there are changes to the ontological condition of humanity which is so corrosive that the death it produces is passed on continually, and renders them guilty before God. This is just an explanation for those who don't think this is fair. Paul points out that it's simply a given that everyone is guilty, therefore God decides who lives or dies according to his omniscient wisdom.

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

It should be noted here that Cain continued to have children who would have to be evil as well because they all have their origins in "that wicked one". Moreover, all descendents of Adam are evil as well through their disobedience. The authors of the bible have thier bases covered.

He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

This word abide is pertinent to your argument.

a·bide
[əˈbīd]
VERB
(abide by)
accept or act in accordance with (a rule, decision, or recommendation).
"I said I would abide by their decision"
synonyms: comply with · obey · observe · follow · keep to · hold to · [more]
informal
(can/could not abide)
be unable to tolerate (someone or something).
"if there is one thing I cannot abide it is a lack of discipline"
synonyms: tolerate · bear · stand · put up with · endure · suffer · [more]
(of a feeling or memory) continue without fading or being lost.
synonyms: continue · remain · survive · last · persist · stay · hold on · [more]
archaic
live; dwell.
synonyms: reside · live

Those who abide or live in death are already essentially dead. There is nothing wise, merciful or loving about them. They're effectively Zombies, and for all practical intents and purposes they're effectively dead already. A few of the more recent Zombie movies show the dilemma of having to kill a loved one who has become a zombie. They have to resist the affection they have for the one's they love in order to put them out of their misery. Love trumps the warm fuzzy feelings. The case of Amalek is dealt with in this line:

17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

Amalek doesn't have the love of God, and is going against God's will.
Which leads us to your quote:

19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

The question is, do those who have hearts that condemn them know that their hearts condemn them, and is this even relevant? It isn't necessary because it is God who knows all things, not us. The fact that we are ignorant of our own evil doesn't negate the fact that we are evil. This is supported by Jeremiah's words.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9

Only God, and those he chooses to reveal it to, can know the deceptions of the human heart.

You were blameless in your behavior from the day you were created until wickedness was discovered in you. Ezekiel 28:15

This is pointing out that God doesn't create wickedness. Wickedness appears along with free will, and one can't help but choose evil when one is ignorant.

Notice that he says the heart is deceitful above all things. What about Satan? Isn't Satan a thing? Doesn't Satan exist? How can the deceitfulness within the heart of humanity eclipse that of Lucifer? This appears to be a blatant contradiction, doesn't it? Only if Satan isn't a personification of the heart, or ego. If that could be proven, it would be a definite contradiction.

When the gospel narratives describe Jesus being tempted of the devil, the temptations are no different than what we have today, i.e. power. Power over people, self mastery, and ultimately power over God; the power to become God. Modern psychology would call this the workings of the ego, or super ego. So the narratives are effectively just personifying the natural inclinations of our own egos. In other words, Satan is just another name for the ego. Personifying things is common throughout the biblical texts so there is no reason we can't apply this here as well. Ezekiel points out that in the end Satan isn't real anyways when he describes him being turned to ashes within.

For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,

The thing to note here is that to say, "there is no one like Me" is to say that he is incomparable. There is nothing in the created world that can compare to God. In other words, God is transcendent. In fact, the most accurate way to articulate it would be to say that the word "God" is synonymous with transcendence. The terms are synonymous, but there is no referent for transcendence. The referent doesn't exist.

This is where our analysis crumbles apart because God transcends our morality. We can attribute whatever we want to God, but none of it will ever stick. The theist can attribute benevolence to God while the skeptic attributes malevolence, and both are incorrect. Both have assumed that they can even articulate a thing about God in the first place. The fact of the matter is that we are effectively talking about a God of our own imagination. The authors are effectively presenting a God that is above reproach. One doesn't have to agree with their God Who throws loaded dice, but the fact remains that they've set the rules and their rules don't contradict.

Nonetheless, if the authors are going to make the attempt they have to start somewhere, and so they come up with a word which can have no referent in the created world. This is no small feat, and one has to admit their honesty in pointing out that he is incomparable. So how do they get around contradicting themselves? They point out that God is the cause of everything, and even the cause of evil. He has others fulfill his will without getting his own hands dirty. This may seem unfair or deceitful, but it isn't contradictory or inconsistent with a God that allows people to have free will. Without evil there can be no choice between good and evil to begin with. Without polar opposites there can be no free will.

The fact that what is good is also transcendent is where most jump ship and go bananas because without what is good being evident, there can ultimately be no free will. So the texts all show that what is good is revealed, but not everyone sees it; those who do, respond while those who don't, don't. Paul goes into detail on this issue in his letter to the Romans (ch.9) which has caused great controversy for most people who read it. This doesn't mean that it is contradictory though. It's right in line with the rest of the bible. This is not to defend it, but to show that it isn't contradictory.

"15 So the LORD sent a plague on Israel" from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. "

The word "so" indicates a reason for what God is sending which is a plague. You haven't provided a reason for suggesting why God's reasons are capricious. The point to remember here is that the reason must be a capricious one from the text. We may assert that the reasons are capricious, but we must remember that this is within the context of a world that is already justifibly condemned to death. One could argue that WHEN God chooses to carry out justice is capricious except that the texts have already given the reasons why which prompts God's justice.

Are plagues evil? Are they immoral? As you have already pointed out,albeit not with regards to the plagues themselves; they are non moral agents. This isn't to say that they have transcended morality, but that is beside the point. The fact is that non moral agents can't be judged by anyone's moral standards.

However, transcendence does transcend morality. Which doesn't necessarily mean that God is free to do evil, or that the standard of morality is no longer pertinent. The fact is that a transcendently good God is beyond our ideas of good and evil, right and wrong. In other words, in relation to an infinitly good God, all are not just evil, but infinitely evil. We can't perceive or comprehend an infinitly good God so we can't comprehend that the people in the biblical texts are evil. Our inability to understand doesn't negate the fact that this is perfectly consistant and non contradictory.

This is even more the case when the authors make their god THE God of the bible. They are strict monotheists, albeit with some modifications in the New Testament. For them, God is the very ground of their moral sense, as well as their actions, thoughts, feelings, etc. Whatever moral revulsion they may have at sacrificing their son, or wholesale genocide is given to them by their God. They don't just give in, there is no other option. If God isn't infinitly above this then we are degrading monotheism, and using it to justify our own beliefs and judgements. The monotheistic God isn't a "stamp God" to certify what we know, or a "gap God" to fill in the blanks for what we don't know.

People are free to believe in their own sense of truth and goodness, but if we put conditions on God then we are just unbelievers playing with words. We believe in a god that is beautiful, truthful and good according to our standards, which we then turn around and pretend that God has given us. This is making God in our own image. This anthropomorphic humanism is rampant throughout the biblical texts, not to mention the world we live in; believer and non believer alike. The monotheistic God cannot be a pragmatic hypothesis. If there is a monotheistic God, he will not be at our service.

all the firstborn of the cattle as well. "

This may seem a bit extreme and arbitrary, but at the same time there is also a consistency in that it is only the first born, and this theme of primogeniture runs throughout the biblical texts. There is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in driving home a point that is being repeatedly ignored. In this case Israel is God's first born who is being prevented from life, therefore Egypt's first born shall die; e.g. "An eye for an eye". The problem is that Israel is worth way more than Egypt so Egypt must also lose the first born of their cattle, not to mention all of their gold and silver. Even this isn't enough, but God has made his power known which is what the texts indicate as his purpose. Again, we may not agree with his methods, but this isn't a problem unless his methods are contradictory. Given that all are condemned and worthy of death, there can be no contradiction.

“See, I will stir up against them the Medes ,
who do not care for silver
and have no delight in gold.
18 Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants,
nor will they look with compassion on children. �

So the Medes aren't materialistic like those they are going to destroy. They are in possession of a superior morality that can't be bought. They will not be swayed by mercy or compassion from carrying out justice.

"This is what the Lord of hosts has to say : ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ “

Here again, God has reasons for carrying out justice. The authors seem to be laying out a system of morality that must have consequences for those who transgress them. We may think that these consequences are excessive or even unjust, but the texts clearly don't see it that way at all. This doesn't mean that the texts are contradictory. It just means that we don't agree with their idea of justice, and unless we can prove that their ideas are contradictory; they aren't.

"Let the offspring of the wicked never be mentioned again.
21 Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities.
22 “I will rise up against them,� declares the Lord Almighty.
“ I will wipe out Babylon’s name and survivors, her offspring and descendants, " declares the Lord."

The texts indicate they're wicked, but again I hasten to reiterate what Paul says

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

This is no small assertion. Paul is pointing out that God has revealed his will, purposes, etc. through these texts. Obviously God doesn't have to reveal them exhaustively, just accurately.

3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

In other words, the righteousness of God is a given

5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

When Paul says that he speaks as a man, he's pointing out that what appears like petty revenge is our perspective of the effects of transcendent righteousness.

6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

Obviously God would't be able to judge the world if he wasn't just, omniscient, etc.

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one...etc.

Given that no one is righteous, omniscient, wise, etc except God; there is no one who can judge God.
And just as relevant is the fact that existence is not transcendent, therefore transcendence doesn't exist. God doesn't exist. Good luck judging what doesn't exist in the first place.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic in order to save what cannot be saved.

Dear sir non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals) don't have the mental faculties necessary to understand complex abstract notions such as right, wrong, good, evil, law, morality, salvation; can’t understand God’s requirements for salvation and therefore can’t do morally reprehensible, illegal acts. Therefore their moral status is always constant: innocent.

Therefore logic dictates they cannot be held responsible for any wrong doing and therefore punished under any circumstances whatsoever.

God(Yahweh) is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent-morally perfect; infinitely wise, just, merciful.

Therefore we would see zero non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals) that suffer because of God(Yahweh), are punished by God(Yahweh) .

C: Seeing that at least one non-moral agent was punished, suffered and died as a consequence of God(Yahweh)'s actions proves without a shade of doubt that we have a contradiction for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent-morally perfect; infinitely wise, just, merciful that punishes non-moral agents; that inflicts suffering, pain and death to non-moral agents is an illogical concept.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 82 by alexxcJRO]

non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals) don't have the mental faculties necessary to understand complex abstract notions such as right, wrong, good, evil, law, morality, salvation; can’t understand God’s requirements for salvation and therefore can’t do morally reprehensible, illegal acts. Therefore their moral status is always constant: innocent.

False. I cited the biblical text which refutes your baseless assertion (see Romans ch.3) i.e. "no one is righteous...all are guilty" All doesn't mean some. All means every last atom.

logic dictates they...

Nope. Read your bible again. God dictates who is innocent and who is guilty, and God says all are guilty. Logic is what one is supposed to use when they enter into a debate, not what one injects into a text that has already defined its terms; terms which you didn't seem to notice.

God(Yahweh) is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient,....

Yeah, we got that already. You're not advancing an argument. The text quite plainly states that God is "incomparable". You even quoted it in your post. Pretending the biblical God isn't what the authors make him out to be is once again injecting your own ideas of God into the text. Omniscient means, despite your protestations to the contrary; no one will ever know God or anything about God,

we would see zero...etc.

You can't see zero anything. The only contradictions evident in this discussion are coming from your posts.

[alexxcJRO]

False. I cited the biblical text which refutes your baseless assertion (see Romans ch.3) i.e. "no one is righteous...all are guilty" All doesn't mean some. All means every last atom.
Nope. Read your bible again. God dictates who is innocent and who is guilty, and God says all are guilty. Logic is what one is supposed to use when they enter into a debate, not what one injects into a text that has already defined its terms; terms which you didn't seem to notice.

Yet according to simple logic non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals) are innocent.

On omnipotent, all-knowing, omnibenevolent-morally perfect, infinitely wise, just, merciful would not punish non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals) for he would know this. He would not do something so illogical.

We have a contradiction between verses who say God(Yahweh) is omnipotent, all-knowing, omnibenevolent-morally perfect, infinitely wise, just, merciful and verses where God(Yahweh) does something illogical: punishes non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals) or verses that say illogical things: non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals) are guilty, deserve punishment.

Q: What happens with an infant that is punished and killed by God(Yahweh) ? Does he/she go to hell?

Omniscient means, despite your protestations to the contrary; no one will ever know God or anything about God,

Dear sir omniscient means all knowing.


omniscient
ɒmˈnɪsɪənt/Submit
adjective
knowing everything.
"a third-person omniscient narrator"
synonyms: all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing
"the story is told by an omniscient fictional narrator"

https://www.google.ro/search?client=ope ... 90tYVBPVyw

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 84 by alexxcJRO]

according to simple logic non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals) are innocent.

You are assuming what you are attempting to prove. You are assuming that the people within this fictional narrative are innocent. The TEXTS plainly point out that they are "all guilty". Guilt is NOT synonymous with innocence. The thing that really begins to emerge here within your posts is a preferance for bashing a god that we can both agree is a monster. The problem with this is that isn't what the topic is about. It isn't about the morality of God, it's about contradictory statements. Evidently the only contradictory statements you can find are those that result from your definition of guilt being redefined to mean "innocence" That's a contradiction in your mind; not the texts.

Q: What happens with an infant that is punished and killed by God(Yahweh) ? Does he/she go to hell?

Hell as defined in the bible is "the grave". So yes, anyone who dies or is killed goes to "the grave" which is not necessarily to say a hole in the ground, but can include a sepulchre, cremation etc.

shnarkle wrote:

Omniscient means, despite your protestations to the contrary; no one will ever know God or anything about God,

I also wrote:

omniscient means all knowing

Dear sir omniscient means all knowing.

The fact is that an all knowing God cannot be known. If an all knowing God could be known, then he would not be all knowing, he would be also (at least partly) known. All does not mean "some";"part";"partly" etc. Again, I would refer you to what I already posted on the subject of logical thinking, contradiction etc. To SAY that God is all knowing AND known is a logical contradiction. God cannot be both.

God cannot be transcendent and exist either. You can't compare an incomparable God to anything; examples include morality, knowledge, power,etc.

So far you've done nothing but repeat your first assertions; assertions which I not only addressed, but refuted.

You aren't advancing your bullet points, or even presenting an argument that is relevant to this OP.

I don't care how big of a scoundrel God could possibly be, especially when fictional gods don't exist in the first place. I've never seen people get more bent out of shape over fictional characters than when they encounter the God of the bible. The thing that is absolutely baffling is to consider that the texts themselves even point out that he doesn't exist. Perhaps that's why Jews and Christians aren't bothered by it so much. Deep down inside they know God doesn't exist. They're just pretending because they like to troll people.

Seems to be working quite effectively...

[alexxcJRO]

You are assuming what you are attempting to prove. You are assuming that the people within this fictional narrative are innocent. The TEXTS plainly point out that they are "all guilty". Guilt is NOT synonymous with innocence. The thing that really begins to emerge here within your posts is a preferance for bashing a god that we can both agree is a monster. The problem with this is that isn't what the topic is about. It isn't about the morality of God, it's about contradictory statements. Evidently the only contradictory statements you can find are those that result from your definition of guilt being redefined to mean "innocence" That's a contradiction in your mind; not the texts.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic in order to save what cannot be saved.

Contra1: An omnipotent, omniscient=all knowing(has perfect knowledge), omnibenevolent-morally perfect, infinitely wise, just and merciful being that punishes non-moral agents is a contradiction.

You said in the op: "Of all the contradictions found in scripture, which ones could prove to be most disturbing, or have the most serious ramifications for "believers"? "

Contra1 is such contradiction. Contra1 is one of the most disturbing, has the most serious ramifications for "believers".


Here a more direct one since you are so adamant:

"No One Is Righteous
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;

"they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. 5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."

P1. Bible says none is righteous, innocent.
P2. Bible says some are righteous, innocent.
C: Therefore we have a contradiction in the bible.

QED. You are done.
Bye bye. Cius. Sayonara.

The fact is that an all knowing God cannot be known. If an all knowing God could be known, then he would not be all knowing, he would be also (at least partly) known. All does not mean "some";"part";"partly" etc. Again, I would refer you to what I already posted on the subject of logical thinking, contradiction etc. To SAY that God is all knowing AND known is a logical contradiction. God cannot be both.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any accuracy.
Dear sir an omniscient=all knowing God means a God that has perfect knowledge. God knows all things. There is nothing he does not know.

I don't care how big of a scoundrel God could possibly be, especially when fictional gods don't exist in the first place. I've never seen people get more bent out of shape over fictional characters than when they encounter the God of the bible.The thing that is absolutely baffling is to consider that the texts themselves even point out that he doesn't exist. Perhaps that's why Jews and Christians aren't bothered by it so much. Deep down inside they know God doesn't exist. They're just pretending because they like to troll people.

Q: How do you know Jews and Christians don't believe deep down in God and are trolling us? Are you omniscient dear sir?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to alexxcJRO]

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

I couldn't agree more. The problem is that atheists are incapable of properly reading it. The only people who think about the bible as much as those who believe in the bible are those who don't believe in it. The problem is that it isn't a potent force for atheism; just a potent force for drawing people who don't understand how to read the bible. The blind leading the blind.

God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"

I really liked this quote, primarily because it spotlights the magnificent incomprehensible stupidity that develops from this form of seething condescension. While it is quite true that abstract thought invents the gods, it also invents one's identity, and at an age prior to inventing the gods. It is that abstract thought that invents the gods, and that same abstract thought that thinks the gods are nobody, never understanding that their identity is just as insignificant...

[shnarkle]

"No One Is Righteous
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;

"they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. 5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."

P1. Bible says none is righteous, innocent.
P2. Bible says some are righteous, innocent.
C: Therefore we have a contradiction in the bible.

That is a perfect example of what I was asking for. The fact that I had to spoon feed the scriptural passages to you piece by piece notwithstanding.

So we have a contradiction. Perhaps someone can elaborate on why they think this would cause believers to become concerned, disturbed, troubled, faithless, etc. Perhaps there are believers who could respond with why this wouldn't bother them...

The fact is that an all knowing God cannot be known. If an all knowing God could be known, then he would not be all knowing, he would be also (at least partly) known. All does not mean "some";"part";"partly" etc. Again, I would refer you to what I already posted on the subject of logical thinking, contradiction etc. To SAY that God is all knowing AND known is a logical contradiction. God cannot be both.

Dear sir an omniscient=all knowing God means a God that has perfect knowledge. God knows all things. There is nothing he does not know.

Quite true as I think I've already admitted and agreed repeatedly; so many times I've lost track. The fact is that no one can know what is all knowing. If one is known, they cannot be all knowing. If one is omniscient they cannot be partly ignorant. How can one be ignorant of what one already knows?

I'm not here to see how many different ways there are to say the same thing repeatedly; the argument needs to be advanced.

I don't care how big of a scoundrel God could possibly be, especially when fictional gods don't exist in the first place. I've never seen people get more bent out of shape over fictional characters than when they encounter the God of the bible.The thing that is absolutely baffling is to consider that the texts themselves even point out that he doesn't exist. Perhaps that's why Jews and Christians aren't bothered by it so much. Deep down inside they know God doesn't exist. They're just pretending because they like to troll people.

Q: How do you know Jews and Christians don't believe deep down in God and are trolling us? Are you omniscient dear sir?

For the question to be asked indicates an admittedly limited level of understanding. As Socrates pointed out, the unexamined life isn't worth living. You're off to a good start by admitting that you know you don't know...

[alexxcJRO]

The problem is that atheists are incapable of properly reading it. The only people who think about the bible as much as those who believe in the bible are those who don't believe in it. The problem is that it isn't a potent force for atheism; just a potent force for drawing people who don't understand how to read the bible. The blind leading the blind.

I really liked this quote, primarily because it spotlights the magnificent incomprehensible stupidity that develops from this form of seething condescension. While it is quite true that abstract thought invents the gods, it also invents one's identity, and at an age prior to inventing the gods. It is that abstract thought that invents the gods, and that same abstract thought that thinks the gods are nobody, never understanding that their identity is just as insignificant...

Ad hominem. Hasty generalization. You do love them logical fallacies.

When one arguments are impotent one goes to ad hominem.

The fact remains that the pillars of theism rest upon a flimsy foundation composed of impotent theological arguments, impotent evidence and a whole lot of nonsense. 8-)

[alexxcJRO]

So we have a contradiction. Perhaps someone can elaborate on why they think this would cause believers to become concerned, disturbed, troubled, faithless, etc. Perhaps there are believers who could respond with why this wouldn't bother them...

Having their bible portraing an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent-morally perfect, infinitely wise, just, merciful who admits some of the humans are innocent but still punishes them is really disturbing for the believers for it points to some disturbing conslusion : either their God is not omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent-morally perfect, infinitely wise, just, merciful but a capricious, malevolent, infanticidal bully or he does not exist(he was just conjured up by bronze age goat herders).

The fact is that no one can know what is all knowing. If one is known, they cannot be all knowing. If one is omniscient they cannot be partly ignorant. How can one be ignorant of what one already knows?

I really don't know what nonsense are you babbling about.

I never said a being can be both omniscient and not omniscient.

For the question to be asked indicates an admittedly limited level of understanding. As Socrates pointed out, the unexamined life isn't worth living. You're off to a good start by admitting that you know you don't know...

You should take this advice, embrace it yourself and not claim to know what you don't really know(that Jews and Christians don't believe deep down in God and are trolling us).