Christianity's Problem

[POI]

God wants to communicate truth to his creation, right? Thus, if this is the case, then why communicate like he did? Many were/are illiterate, and/or are lazy. Meaning, many Christians have not made a true effort to read their Bible's, from cover to cover, and try to understand it completely. God would know all of this. But even if all read the Bible, and felt they understood every word, mass disagreement would soon develop anyways. As evidence by the endless denominations. Further, even the highly educated do not agree. Heck, we can even go as far as to establish that people who study hermeneutics do not agree. Even in the best case of scenarios, if everyone were to pick up a Bible, read it several times from cover to cover; mass disagreement, on many topics, would likely still persist.

For Debate:

Seems as though Jesus-God did a poor job in clearly conveying his message(s). Does Jesus-God REALLY wish to convey truth to his creation? Because if he does, why be satisfied with the published Bible?

[1213]

Why do you think I interpret? I think the problem comes from the desire to interpret things, it leads people away from truth. Truthful is to take the text as it is written and explained in the text.

Clearly you do as I'm sure that on many occasions, you have rejected what the Bible says in favour of what you think it Really says.or should have said. Interpretation.

What have I rejected?

Well, looking back at your posts, undoubted chattel slavery (or non Hebrews) stated specifically in the Bible (1), you rejected in favor of "...Well, God does not seem to have a problem with it... By what I see, God don't want people to be treated wrongly. For example because of the rule "love your neighbor as yourself". You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people; but you shall love y..."

The application of 'neighbour' in arguable context ("your people") as a pretext to dismiss a clear rule in the OT is 'rejection'of what the Bible actually says in favor of what you would like it to have said.

(1) Leviticus 25. 44 ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly".

Sorry, I don't think I reject that. I think Hebrews have that right to buy slaves. However, I also don't reject the part that speaks against kidnapping anyone or the rule to love others. I take the whole Bible and don't reject the rules that are against tyrannical way.

[Diogenes]

...
Doesn't the Bible also instruct folks to stone people?
...

Yes, Bible tells that for some actions person would deserve stoning.

Do you have a problem with that?

How many people have you stoned?

I have not stoned anyone, for example because I don't think I have that right.

Or... you just don't have the stones?

Isn't it ... well... ridiculous to compare a 2000-3000 year old nomadic tribe's theocratic punishment system to today where we have a formal, secular legal system? And didn't Jesus himself caution restraint in punishing people for their moral failings?

“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” _ ESV

... and then there's the Monosodium Glutamate version:

"The religion scholars and Pharisees led in a woman who had been caught in an act of adultery. They stood her in plain sight of everyone and said, “Teacher, this woman was caught red-handed in the act of adultery. Moses, in the Law, gives orders to stone such persons. What do you say?” They were trying to trap him into saying something incriminating so they could bring charges against him." _ MSG

[TRANSPONDER]

Why do you think I interpret? I think the problem comes from the desire to interpret things, it leads people away from truth. Truthful is to take the text as it is written and explained in the text.

Clearly you do as I'm sure that on many occasions, you have rejected what the Bible says in favour of what you think it Really says.or should have said. Interpretation.

What have I rejected?

Well, looking back at your posts, undoubted chattel slavery (or non Hebrews) stated specifically in the Bible (1), you rejected in favor of "...Well, God does not seem to have a problem with it... By what I see, God don't want people to be treated wrongly. For example because of the rule "love your neighbor as yourself". You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people; but you shall love y..."

The application of 'neighbour' in arguable context ("your people") as a pretext to dismiss a clear rule in the OT is 'rejection'of what the Bible actually says in favor of what you would like it to have said.

(1) Leviticus 25. 44 ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly".

Sorry, I don't think I reject that. I think Hebrews have that right to buy slaves. However, I also don't reject the part that speaks against kidnapping anyone or the rule to love others. I take the whole Bible and don't reject the rules that are against tyrannical way.

Now you are just wriggling and doubling down. If you accept the right to buy slaves AND...don't reject this as the Bible says so specifically...foreign slaves are property for life and do not benefit from the 7 year release clause, then the bit about kidnapping and 'love your neighbour' is irrelevant. So you must be rejecting what the Bible says and are trying to fiddle the Bible to support what you want it to say. Classic example of what I said. Other examples would be the daylight (morning and evening, not some starlight or spiritual light) created before the sun as a light to mark the day (and we heard all the evasions and excuses already) and the sun standing still for Joshua.

We don't even get onto the NT and the contradictions there as the evasion and denial and excuses are just too tiresome. I am again daily thankful that I don't have to fiddle and evade in order to make the facts fit my preferences.

[JoeyKnothead]

I have not stoned anyone, for example because I don't think I have that right.

Or... you just don't have the stones?

Isn't it ... well... ridiculous to compare a 2000-3000 year old nomadic tribe's theocratic punishment system to today where we have a formal, secular legal system? And didn't Jesus himself caution restraint in punishing people for their moral failings?

“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” _ ESV

... and then there's the Monosodium Glutamate version:

"The religion scholars and Pharisees led in a woman who had been caught in an act of adultery. They stood her in plain sight of everyone and said, “Teacher, this woman was caught red-handed in the act of adultery. Moses, in the Law, gives orders to stone such persons. What do you say?” They were trying to trap him into saying something incriminating so they could bring charges against him." _ MSG

I was kinda working up to that. God says to stone certain folks, but then Jesus says the bit about who being em, without sin...

Surely one can see the problem in telling folks to stone one another, only to come along later after how many years and say, " But only if you ain't sinned. "

We're left to wonder how that works under a 'loving' god.

(Taglarial edit)

[POI]

Sorry, I don't think I reject that. I think Hebrews have that right to buy slaves. However, I also don't reject the part that speaks against kidnapping anyone or the rule to love others. I take the whole Bible and don't reject the rules that are against tyrannical way.

I already addressed your position in the 'Slavery' thread. The Bible sanctions/condones chattel slavery and also the breading of chattel slaves for lifetime property. Does anyone have this right?

[JoeyKnothead]

I already addressed your position in the 'Slavery' thread. The Bible sanctions/condones chattel slavery and also the breading of chattel slaves for lifetime property. Does anyone have this right?

At a risk of being off topic, this circles me back to the argument from morals.

How one can reconcile the clear biblical acceptance
of slavery, and God as a superior source of morality astounds me.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
We don't even get onto the NT and the contradictions there as the evasion and denial and excuses are just too tiresome. I am again daily thankful that I don't have to fiddle and evade in order to make the facts fit my preferences.

I don't even see it as trying to fit stuff, but as thinking that stuff actually does fit.

I'd caution against thinking folks are dishonest with themselves, because it doesn't address the enormity of their errant thinking.

[brunumb]

The Bible sanctions/condones chattel slavery and also the breading of chattel slaves for lifetime property.

Any mention of breading them for deep fried tasty treats?

[Diogenes]

The Bible sanctions/condones chattel slavery and also the breading of chattel slaves for lifetime property.

Any mention of breading them for deep fried tasty treats?

Speaking of breaded deep fried treats it's interesting Leviticus prohibits the consumption of shrimp, but I do not recall a specific law against eating slaves, breaded or otherwise.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
We don't even get onto the NT and the contradictions there as the evasion and denial and excuses are just too tiresome. I am again daily thankful that I don't have to fiddle and evade in order to make the facts fit my preferences.

I don't even see it as trying to fit stuff, but as thinking that stuff actually does fit.

I'd caution against thinking folks are dishonest with themselves, because it doesn't address the enormity of their errant thinking.

Well, yes. But whether they actually believe it is true or use it anyway because false stuff is ok as it is True in Faith-ways, is another discussion.

Which we will now have With regard to the women finding the tomb empty and whether or not there was an angelic message or not and whether they ran to Jesus or not, (and there's contradictions, right there') one poster argued that the women split up, so one saw Jesus and the other didn't. Quite ingenious. And,while there was nothing whatsoever to say that, and it isn't probable (and I reckon there is only one pathway anyway) it is undiprovable...well actually, it is, as the hypothesis that best fits the evidence (of what the Bible says) is that there is a real contradiction and the Bible refutes itself.

But Bible- apologetics don't work on evidence; they work on Faith - that the Bible is true and any explanation must either be true, or will do to win the argument, as SOME explanation must be true. But the refutation of the 'split up' theory is that Both women in John are there as Mary says 'we'do not know where they have laid him' which means that both are there and neither saw Jesus or heard the angelic explanation. It is on all reason and evidence, confirmation of a real contradiction or two. I recall it was suggested that this might not be correctly reported, but when the Bible has to be dismissed as unreliable to try to argue it is reliable, Blindfolded faith is taken to a whole new level.

Along with that of the poster who was simply being silly in arguing that Mary did not go into the tomb and didn't hear the explanation when the Bible shows clearly that, in the synoptic version, they both did and had. We are (at best) in the area of denial and far -fetched excuses that serve only to prop up the case of the poster, not to make a case that anyone with their minds still open would accept.

Which is why we carry on, as we do make the case, even if they will deny everything including that we exist at all, rather than admit they are wrong.