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.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

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 Jewish Law did not envisage the context in which Paul lived; it was written for a people who would have their own land and live under their own god (or, later, king). Thus it is true the Law forbids sacrifice to idols; but the Law says nothing about investigating the origins of dishes to see if tributes had been made to a foreign deity.

Paul was working within a completely different context, and that on two grounds: first, diaspora Judaism, and second, his understanding of how Gentiles enter the community of the people of God.

What we have here is innovation, not inconsistency, and certainly not contradiction.

[shnarkle]

Not really, but then I'm not easily disturbed; especially by works of fiction.

I meant it is pretty disturbing for believers.

Not really. As I pointed out before with the example of Abraham, they simply accept it as the will of an omniscient and benevolent God. This reaction alone is what disturbs some who are not believers.

That assumes that a being with perfect knowledge would tell you he is omniscient, and there's no way for you to know that until that happens. Have you had a revelation from this fictional God? The biblical God is not part of the known world, if he were, then he would be part of creation, and the biblical God is not what is created. The biblical God is the creator. He isn't part of his creation. The biblical authors are not pantheists or panentheists.

Dear sir it was a hypothetical example to illustrate my point.

Q: Do you not know what an hypothetical example is?:))

Sure, but then I was simply going along with your hypothetical example to show that within the biblical context, this makes no sense whatsoever. You are conflating "perfect" with "all". Again, one can have a perfect pool of water, but this isn't to say that they have all water. One can have a perfect and accurate understanding of a subject without having an exhaustive understanding of the subject. God is "ALL" knowing, and this does not allow for him to be known.

Given that I've already presented these arguments without comment from you, I can only assume that you agree with them so you aren't advancing your argument.

Dear sir we are talking about the personal God of the bible who intervenes in the universe and talks to humans, has a relationship with them, helps them not about a deistic God.
We are talking about the biblical text.

Yes, and the biblical texts point out that God is "incomparable" which is to say transcendent, and a transcendent God cannot be known nor can it be revealed to anyone especially when it is all knowing. The biblical authors get around this by supplying messengers, also known as angels, or angels of the Lord. The biblical authors show that from our perspective they might as well be God and the texts show that they are conflated from one sentence to the next; e.g. Jacob wrestles with the angel of the Lord who is also referred to as the Lord.

Strict monotheism doesn't allow a transcendent God to be "personal". The word "personal" comes from the word "persona" and means "a mask". God doesn't wear masks. The new testament reveals the answer to the dilemma by pointing out that God is seen in his image, i.e. humanity. God becomes personal through human beings who have cast off their self absorbed lives and sought God.

Thirdly,
You your self know something about God. He is not part of the known world.

Not even close. I quite simply know the definition of transcendence which is synonymous with the biblical definition of God. The problem isn't in what I know, but in the limitations of our language. We "define" God, which is to say that we give the term a definition. We aren't defining God at all, but giving a word, or symbol a definition. There can be no referent for the biblical God. He quite simply doesn't exist within or without the biblical texts.

You yourself are limiting God. He is not omnipresent.
Your shooting yourself in the foot. 😊)

Not really, but you bring up a good point. The biblical God is omniscient, but a pantheist would say he is omnipresent which for a pantheist is effectively the same thing. In other words, it means the same thing. It's the pantheist's way of pointing out that God knows everything because he is everywhere. It's a cultural variation on the same theme.

The biblical God is a "who" rather than a "what" so it isn't accurate to say that God is everywhere as God isn't a place or location. From the biblical standpoint, it isn't accurate to say that God is in everything because God creates everything and he is not "what" he creates. However, when the biblical god is depicted as saying, "I Am WHO AM", the authors of the new testament take that statement and apply it to Jesus Christ who then extends it to his disciples by saying, "You are the light of the world".

The incarnation becomes a problem for the authors in that God has now become objectively a part of the world, but they solve the problem by showing that Christ is not God, but God's image. Even God's image is not objectively present, but subjectively present in that Christ must leave that the spirit may come to dwell within them i.e. subjectively within. In other words, Christ is not there to be worshipped objectively as this would be idolatry. Whereas manifesting God's will subjectively is the highest form of worship for the biblical believer.

Sure, here's the context:


Quote:
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.

The word "perhaps" is quite commonly used to express uncertainty or the possibility that somethign may exist or be true. It indicates speculation which is what I was doing. My admitted speculation was not without evidence as you have just admitted that you are an atheist and are quite obviously triggered. Other examples include Christopher HItchens, Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrmen, Jack Spong as well as just about every garden variety atheist that trolls the internet today. Perhaps we could add those who are neither Jew or Christian to the list as well.

Perhaps you are just dodging now that you saw you can’t back up your statement.

Well that theory just bit the dust as this post proves.

Perhaps you are just a troll that spouts out nonsense to trigger responses.

Again, I must applaud your honesty in admitting that you've been triggered. However, as I already pointed out one needn't venture into the realm of trolling to inflame those who are so easily offended. For some people this just naturally causes these reactions. The reasons some people are so easily triggered isn't really because of those who are engaged in trolling. The true causes range from confusion, low self esteem, inferiority complex, lack of self control, to... fill in the blanks...

Trolls simply see this defect of character as a source of amusement. One of the most prominent archetypes being the uncle some of us grew up with who was the first one to ask us to pull his finger. The lesson is in the insult, i.e. that it really is your own fault.

So, on some level, we could use this as a corollary to what we're talking about with the omniscience of the biblical God. Uncle Buck knows what is known, but little Richard is ignorant. He is what is known. It matters little what one knows because one can't know what can't be known. When one does know, it is already too late as one cannot see God and live. The limitations of the senses are overwhelmed and obliterated by the infinite volume of knowledge which can't be received by the intellect at all. It would be like trying to stuff the ocean into a coffee cup. What could you possibly know about the ocean, that you didn't know before; by looking into a cup of water? By the same token the sheer volume of gaseous excrement can in no way edify one's intellect.

When Uncle Buck breaks wind in your general direction, the only thing you can be painfully aware of will be the burning sensations searing through your nasal cavities as your eyes begin to water profusely to quench what seems an unquenchable stench. All of this overwhelms your senses while your intellect is unable to process much of anything except perhaps until the worst of it is over, then the shame and humiliation begin to creep in.

What ISN"T being considered is Uncle Buck's diet of beer, broccoli, pork rinds, etc. Nor is one likely to consider Uncle Buck's impacted bowel or the 15 to 20 lbs. of rotting meat that is clinging to his colon. Perhaps some 20 to 30 years later one may reflect on the significant events in Uncle Buck's life which led him to the conclusion that this trick would serve some purpose. This will remain a mystery regardless of what anyone else knows through their own painful suffering and humiliation.

While this may be a significant reason to stay as far away from Uncle Buck as possible, this isn't a contradiction because Uncle Buck has his reasons which ultimately may even be unknown to him as well.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 101 by liamconnor]

Paul was working within a completely different context,... his understanding of how Gentiles enter the community of the people of God.

How so? Could you elaborate on this idea?

[alexxcJRO]

Not really. As I pointed out before with the example of Abraham, they simply accept it as the will of an omniscient and benevolent God. This reaction alone is what disturbs some who are not believers.

Off course contradictions disturbs believers. It disturbed me when I was a believer.
Also reading about God promising, ordering the slaughtering of countless children, infants; killing in many horrific ways(drowning->Noah's story, burned by fire->Sodom and Gomorrah's story, plagues->many places through out the bible) countless children, infants disturbed me. Got me to question.

Q: So you don’t think the contradiction I presented in post 86 is disturbing for a believer who thinks the bible is the infallible word of God?
Q: So you don’t think reading about God promising, ordering the slaughtering of countless children, infants; killing in many horrific ways(drowning->Noah's story, burned by fire->Sodom and Gomorrah's story, plagues->many places through out the bible) countless children, infants is disturbing for a believer who thinks his god is all loving, omnibenevolent, morally perfect, super wise, just and merciful?

God is "ALL" knowing, and this does not allow for him to be known.

Given that I've already presented these arguments without comment from you, I can only assume that you agree with them so you aren't advancing your argument.

Dear sir I already debunked this nonsense. )
Please don’t ignore.
Here again:
Me knowing something about a being that has perfect knowledge does take away from it’s perfect knowledge.
God is not going to suddenly know less just because I know something about him.

Yes, and the biblical texts point out that God is "incomparable" which is to say transcendent, and a transcendent God cannot be known nor can it be revealed to anyone especially when it is all knowing.

If the biblical text say God cannot be known then we have a contradiction because the biblical text also say all manner of things about God(is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, super wise, just , jealous, merciful, the Israelite are his favorable people and so one).
Please provide the verse that say God cannot be known.
You may have encounter other contradiction.

The biblical authors show that from our perspective they might as well be God and the texts show that they are conflated from one sentence to the next; e.g. Jacob wrestles with the angel of the Lord who is also referred to as the Lord.

There are other verse that refute this angel hypothesis. This verse says that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saw God, that God was seen, and that he appeared as God almighty(Exodus 6:2-3). Therefore no angel.


"2 God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord;
3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them."(Exodus 6:2-3).


“Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless; “(Gen. 17:1)

It says clearly that the Lord appeared to him, that God almighty walked before him. Therefore he saw God and not an angel.

Well that theory just bit the dust as this post proves.

The word "perhaps" is quite commonly used to express uncertainty or the possibility that somethign may exist or be true. It indicates speculation which is what I was doing.

Again, I must applaud your honesty in admitting that you've been triggered.

Non-sequitur.
It does not follow. I just said you might be a troll.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 104 by alexxcJRO]

contradictions disturbs believers. It disturbed me when I was a believer.

Again, this isn't about you. You were never a believer.

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. 1 John 2:19

Q: So you don’t think the contradiction I presented in post 86 is disturbing for a believer who thinks the bible is the infallible word of God?

I've never encountered a believer who was disturbed by it.

Q: So you don’t think reading about God promising, ordering the slaughtering of countless children, infants; killing in many horrific ways(drowning->Noah's story, burned by fire->Sodom and Gomorrah's story, plagues->many places through out the bible) countless children, infants is disturbing for a believer who thinks his god is all loving, omnibenevolent, morally perfect, super wise, just and merciful?

It really doesn't matter what I think. This OP isn't about what I think, but to answer your question, I don't know any believers who are disturbed by any of this so there's no reason for me to think that they would be disturbed by it. The text quite plainly points out that when someone else does it they're in the wrong. The texts quite plainly point out that this deity can do no wrong. The authors have quite cleverly constructed a system in which no one can judge their deity. How can one judge a deity that can't be known in the first place? To attempt the task is to contradict yourself.

What you don't seem to be aware of here is that the only sane options are to:
1. accept it and get on with your life, or
2. accept that if you're going to shoot dice with this deity, his dice are always going to be loaded.
3. don't be suckered into a fool's bet.

shnarkle wrote:

God is "ALL" knowing, and this does not allow for him to be known.

Given that I've already presented these arguments without comment from you, I can only assume that you agree with them so you aren't advancing your argument.

Dear sir I already debunked this nonsense. )

No, you didn't.

Please don’t ignore.
Here again:
Me knowing something about a being that has perfect knowledge does take away from it’s perfect knowledge.
God is not going to suddenly know less just because I know something about him.

You havn't comprehended the issue. God is not part of the known world. God is not something that can be known. God creates everything, but is not created himself, e.g. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" Jn 1:3 God cannot be objectively known because he simply isn't an object that can be known, then there is no way you could possibly know anything about him. To say that God's knowledge is limitless, or that God knows everything that there is to know is not to exhaust the meaning of omniscience. To be all knowing necessasrily means that God cannot be known. To say that God could be known would be a contradiction; not just because an all knowing God cannot be known, but because God is not part of the known world. God is synonymous with transcendence.

If the biblical text say God cannot be known then we have a contradiction because the biblical text also say all manner of things about God(is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, super wise, just , jealous, merciful, the Israelite are his favorable people and so one).
Please provide the verse that say God cannot be known.

Sure, Paul points it out in his letter to the Galatians

after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God,Gal.4:9

There are other verse that refute this angel hypothesis. This verse says that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saw God, that God was seen, and that he appeared as God almighty(Exodus 6:2-3). Therefore no angel.

"2 God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord;
3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them."(Exodus 6:2-3).

Notice that the author points out that he did "NOT" make himself known to them. Fail.

“Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless; “(Gen. 17:1)

It says clearly that the Lord appeared to him, that God almighty walked before him. Therefore he saw God and not an angel.

Says you. Given that no one can see God and live, And given that it makes no effective difference to distinguish between an angel of the Lord and the Lord, it's almost completely insignificant.

shnarkle wrote:

Again, I must applaud your honesty in admitting that you've been triggered.


Non-sequitur.
It does not follow. I just said you might be a troll.

Yes, we can all see that you'd rather talk about the finer points of trolling than the topic of the OP. However, the fact is that as long as you want to talk about it, I'm going to applaud the fact of you're honesty in admitting that you've been triggered. The fact is that you were triggered by my reply to your comments regarding atheism. You took offense, in your false assumption; that I was referring to you specifically. My comment was a simple and quite accurate observation, one which is repeated on a daily basis. Atheists seem to be gluttons for punishment.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 104 by alexxcJRO]

contradictions disturbs believers. It disturbed me when I was a believer.

Again, this isn't about you. You were never a believer.

How is it you are able to claim knowledge of another person's past beliefs and call him a liar when he says he believed something in the past.

Many of us here, including myself were believers in the past. Many of us, former believers, demonstrated those beliefs by making sacrifices, preaching or teaching as missionaries or local pastors... until, by dint of further education and experience realized those beliefs were not justified.

WE saw evidence, and the lack thereof, and changed because our minds never completely closed. We remained open to truth, and evidence, and did not blindly and permanently accept the indoctrination of our youth.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 104 by alexxcJRO]

contradictions disturbs believers. It disturbed me when I was a believer.

Again, this isn't about you. You were never a believer.

How is it you are able to claim knowledge of another person's past beliefs and call him a liar when he says he believed something in the past.

I'm not calling him a liar. The "how" is quite simple, and I provided the proof text jsut below my comment. Here it is again:

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. 1 John 2:19

In other words, they were never believers to begin with.

Many of us here, including myself were believers in the past. Many of us, former believers,

There are no such things as former believers in the biblical texts. Only those who thought they were.

Many of us, former believers, demonstrated those beliefs by making sacrifices, preaching or teaching as missionaries or local pastors...

Sorry, but the texts are pretty clear that those who depart were never believers regardless of your wonderful works.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Ouch that's gotta smart for those who think they're believers, but then atheists aren't believers so what's the big deal? Perhaps the biblical authors are just trolling?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 104 by alexxcJRO]

contradictions disturbs believers. It disturbed me when I was a believer.

Again, this isn't about you. You were never a believer.

.....

Moderator Warning


If a poster claims that he was once a believer, accept his word. Telling him that he was 'never a believer,' even if that's your opinion, is calling him a liar. It is discourteous, uncivil and insulting.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 104 by alexxcJRO]

contradictions disturbs believers. It disturbed me when I was a believer.

Again, this isn't about you. You were never a believer.

How is it you are able to claim knowledge of another person's past beliefs and call him a liar when he says he believed something in the past.

I'm not calling him a liar. The "how" is quite simple, and I provided the proof text jsut below my comment.

Sure you are. Quoting a Bible verse does not cover the fact you claimed he was not being accurate when you claimed to have superior knowledge about his own claim of personal belief. That 1 John 2:19 is dead wrong does not absolve you from being equally wrong. This is the trouble with 'proof texting,' using the Bible. What you've actually accomplished just discredits the Bible or your interpretation of it.

1 John 2:19 is a transparent attempt at bootstrapping.

Are you also claiming that 1 John 2:19 is 'proof' I was also not a believer when I went to Japan as a missionary? Are you seriously claiming that all Christians who discover they were wrong never believed in the first place?

[Overcomer]

shnarkle wrote:

In other words, they were never believers to begin with.

I think it all depends on how we are defining just what a Christian is. I think there are several kinds.

First of all, there are cultural Christians. They aren't followers of Jesus, just people who live in a country built on Judeo-Christian standards.

There are also nominal Christians, those who may give some credence to the idea of God. They may attend church and they may attend Bible studies, etc., but they aren't in a relationship with the Lord.

Then there are Biblical Christians, that is, people who are Christians as the Bible describes them. These are people who are in a relationship with God through the person of Jesus Christ by the infilling of the Holy Spirit. God made humankind to be in a loving relationship with him. The Bible uses metaphors of parent and child, husband and wife, as well as friend, to describe God's relationship with us.

For those of us who are the latter, we have difficulty with atheists who say they used to be Christians. We understand that they were probably nominal Christians at some point in their lives, but they were never in a relationship with the Lord.

But here's the thing: You can sit in a chicken coop, eat chicken feed and cluck, but that doesn't make you a chicken.

By the same token, you can sit in a church, listen to sermons and sing the hymns, and maybe even stand in the pulpit and deliver the sermon, but that doesn't make you a Christian -- at least, not in the Biblical sense of the word.

Certainly people walk away from God and church for a variety of reasons. Often, people turn their back on God because of some tragedy in their lives that makes them doubt his love for them. In pain and anger, they walk away. I get that. Life is hard. We get hurt. We blame God. I've seen it happen a number of times. But those people don't deny the existence of God. They're just angry with him and don't want anything to do with him.

If someone who has been involved in a church becomes an atheist, it's hard to imagine that they were ever a Christian in the Biblical sense of the word. After all, if you've been in a relationship with somebody, you don't suddenly decide the person you have been in a relationship with isn't real. For me, it would be like denying that my earthly father was real. I can't say he isn't once I have been in a relationship with him. The same applies to my heavenly father.

Bottom line: Biblical Christianity isn't about mere head knowledge. It's about heart knowledge as well. It's about a personal relationship. Look at what Jesus says here:

Matthew 7:21-23 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'LORD, LORD,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'LORD, LORD, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers.

The Greek verb translated "knew" carries the connotation of relational intimacy. Jesus is saying there are people who may have done things in his name, but they were never in a personal relationship with him.

Having said all of that, I understand why some atheists honestly think of themselves as ex-Christians and I can also understand why they're ticked off to be told they weren't. But here's the thing: Were they Biblical Christians in a relationship with God? Or were they nominal Christians who were never in a relationship with the Lord at all? I think that's why shnarkle is on a different page. He's defining Biblical Christianity as opposed to nominal Christianity. There's a big difference between the two.