What Bible Passage Most Worries Christians?

[Miles]

.

OR at least gives you pause about the truth of the Bible. This follows on the heels of Transponder's thread: "What Bible passage most worries atheists?"

As I see it the Bible is filled with contradictions: Such as the true father of Salah (Sala).

Genesis 10:24
24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.

Luke 3:35-36
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

And mistakes god made:

1 Samuel 15:35 (3 versions)
CEV
Even though Samuel felt sad about Saul, Samuel never saw him again. The Lord was sorry he had made Saul the king of Israel.
KJ21
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul; and the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.
CEB
Samuel never saw Saul again before he died, but he grieved over Saul. However, the Lord regretted making Saul king over Israel.

Plus God's Incredible cruelty

1 Samuel 15:2-3
2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys."’

Along with his great plans that went kaput! God is fallible.

Genesis 6: 11-13,
11-12 When God looked at the earth, he saw that people had ruined it. Violence was everywhere, and it had ruined their life on earth.
13 So God said to Noah, “Everyone has filled the earth with anger and violence. So I will destroy all living things. I will remove them from the earth.

Genesis 7:21, 23
21Every living thing on earth died—every man and woman, every bird, and every kind of animal.
23 In this way God wiped the earth clean

Problems Begin Again
Genesis 9:20-25
20 Noah became a farmer and planted a vineyard. 21 One day Noah made some wine. He got drunk, went into his tent, and took off all his clothes. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw that his father was naked and told his brothers who were outside the tent. 23 Shem and Japheth took a robe, put it across their shoulders, and walked backward into the tent. Then they covered their father without looking at him.
24 Later, Noah woke up. (He was sleeping because of the wine.) When he learned what his youngest son Ham had done to him, 25 he said,

“May there be a curse on Canaan
May he be a slave to his brothers.”

I think you get the idea. What Bible Passage Most Worries Christians?

.

[1213]

...What Bible Passage Most Worries Christians?

I don't know about others, but I don't worry any Bible passage. Why should I?

[TRANSPONDER]

Mainly because the Bible is full of stuff that has worried other Christians so much they have deconverted.

[AquinasForGod]

I think every Christian has read a bible verse that made them feel uneasy, at least enough that they probably Googled an answer or for some insight. This is normal, especially if you do not have a good background in the church traditions.

A verse that probably troubled me when I first read it was Jesus saying that only the Father knows the day or hour. I understand the verse now, but then I did not.

A verse that I think might trouble most Christians. Hmm.

1Cor 6:9-10 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

It is hard to imagine that some people will not inherit the kingdom of God. Anyone with compassion, will think, well, eventually they make it right? There is a priest that teaches just that. He says eternal hell exist, but no one is there. All go through purgatory an eventually make it to the kingdom.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

As I see it the Bible is filled with contradictions: Such as the true father of Salah (Sala).

Genesis 10:24
24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.

Luke 3:35-36
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

First, let us suppose that this has no reasonable answer. Why would you lose your faith over it unless you think men cannot make mistakes if they are inspired by God? Of course inspired men can make mistakes.

Luke was inspired to interview eye witnesses and create an account based on that. He was not an expert in genealogies.

But also, it is possible someone has more than one father as discussed here explaining the two genealogies of Jesus - https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... -of-christ

And then finally, some answer like this - Cainan was Salah’s immediate father, and Arphaxad was his grandfather. Cainan is not included in Genesis.

And mistakes god made:

1 Samuel 15:35
KJ21
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul; and the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.

Verses like these are really no challenge to those that know it is easier when writing a story to anthropomorphize God. It is also easier in conversation. Otherwise, the bible stories would be full of things like: God in his eternal understanding knows that Saul ought to be made King of Israel, but even so God is eternally displeased with the choices he makes at the end of his life.

Plus God's Incredible cruelty

1 Samuel 15:2-3
2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys."’

I guess you would have to believe the story is historical to really be bothered by it. Those Christians that believe it is historical will ask questions like what are morals and where do we get them? Who decides what is best for humans? There is only one person that in principle could possibly know objectively what is best for humans at any time and that would be he who can see all of time.

He knows exactly what it best for everyone. He knows exactly what set of events is necessary for everyone so that their end is the best it could possibly be.

Along with his great plans that went kaput! God is fallible.

Genesis 6: 11-13,
11-12 When God looked at the earth, he saw that people had ruined it. Violence was everywhere, and it had ruined their life on earth.
13 So God said to Noah, “Everyone has filled the earth with anger and violence. So I will destroy all living things. I will remove them from the earth.

Genesis 7:21, 23
21Every living thing on earth died—every man and woman, every bird, and every kind of animal.
23 In this way God wiped the earth clean

Quoting stories that anthropomorphize God doesn't show God is fallible.

Problems Begin Again
Genesis 9:20-25
20 Noah became a farmer and planted a vineyard. 21 One day Noah made some wine. He got drunk, went into his tent, and took off all his clothes. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw that his father was naked and told his brothers who were outside the tent. 23 Shem and Japheth took a robe, put it across their shoulders, and walked backward into the tent. Then they covered their father without looking at him.
24 Later, Noah woke up. (He was sleeping because of the wine.) When he learned what his youngest son Ham had done to him, 25 he said,

“May there be a curse on Canaan
May he be a slave to his brothers.”

Because so much of Genesis is stories for learning lessons, it is likely this is the same. However, this doesn't make mention of God. Rather it is an imperfect father, Noah who thinks his son Canaan should be a slave to his brothers because as the story implies, he violated his sleeping father.

[brunumb]

1 Samuel 15:2-3
2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys."’

I guess you would have to believe the story is historical to really be bothered by it. Those Christians that believe it is historical will ask questions like what are morals and where do we get them? Who decides what is best for humans? There is only one person that in principle could possibly know objectively what is best for humans at any time and that would be he who can see all of time.
[/quote]

But the event is the outcome of an instruction from God. "Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys". You can wave it away as "God knows best", but I find it unnecessarily brutal and barbaric. I suppose if it teaches us that Yahweh is no better than any of the humans he created, then it is useful.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

As I see it the Bible is filled with contradictions: Such as the true father of Salah (Sala).

Genesis 10:24
24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.

Luke 3:35-36
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

First, let us suppose that this has no reasonable answer. Why would you lose your faith over it unless you think men cannot make mistakes if they are inspired by God?

I wouldn't think anyone would. I only asked "What Bible Passage Most Worries Christians?" Or "at least gives you pause about the truth of the Bible?"

And then finally, some answer like this - Cainan was Salah’s immediate father, and Arphaxad was his grandfather.

Then the "some" you mention need a refresher in the English language. One cannot be the son of male X while at the same time be the son of male Y. To presume that Arphaxad was Sala's grandfather, while an understandable attempt to quash the contradiction, is a wholly unwarranted grasping at straws.

And mistakes god made:

1 Samuel 15:35
KJ21
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul; and the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.

Verses like these are really no challenge to those that know it is easier when writing a story to anthropomorphize God.

If god can be said to love, hate, despair, grieve, laugh, rejoice, lament, weep, care; be joyful, sad, compassionate, angry, relieved, and jealous,* why can't he be said to repent, regret, or feel sorry? * Or should we never take these emotions as being anything like those we humans express? If not why not? And if not why bother attributing them to god in the first place?

*all taken from the Bible

Plus God's Incredible cruelty

1 Samuel 15:2-3
2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys."’

I guess you would have to believe the story is historical to really be bothered by it.

Not at all; however, if one is to believe,

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives. "

And

Proverbs 30:5
5 You can trust this: Every word that God speaks is true. God is a safe place for those who go to him.

then what is there to doubt? Of course if you don't believe the verses from 2 Timothy and Proverbs then you can cherry pick to your heart's delight. Even making up whatever "facts" you like.

Along with his great plans that went kaput! God is fallible.

Genesis 6: 11-13,
11-12 When God looked at the earth, he saw that people had ruined it. Violence was everywhere, and it had ruined their life on earth.
13 So God said to Noah, “Everyone has filled the earth with anger and violence. So I will destroy all living things. I will remove them from the earth.

Genesis 7:21, 23
21Every living thing on earth died—every man and woman, every bird, and every kind of animal.
23 In this way God wiped the earth clean

Quoting stories that anthropomorphize God doesn't show God is fallible.

Sure they do. Weather an anthropomorphized or unanthropomorphized god, having created the Flood, it's fair to assume he had good reason, otherwise the Flood would have been the work of a lunatic or merely a random act at best. But whatever that reason, the Flood left everything no different than before. Think this should count as some kind of success? I don't. I see it as a wasteful failure, be it a Biblical "fact" or a piece of Biblical fiction.

Problems Begin Again
Genesis 9:20-25
20 Noah became a farmer and planted a vineyard. 21 One day Noah made some wine. He got drunk, went into his tent, and took off all his clothes. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw that his father was naked and told his brothers who were outside the tent. 23 Shem and Japheth took a robe, put it across their shoulders, and walked backward into the tent. Then they covered their father without looking at him.
24 Later, Noah woke up. (He was sleeping because of the wine.) When he learned what his youngest son Ham had done to him, 25 he said,

“May there be a curse on Canaan
May he be a slave to his brothers.”

Because so much of Genesis is stories for learning lessons, it is likely this is the same. However, this doesn't make mention of God.

Doesn't need to. As noted by the header, "Problems Begin Again," the essential point of this allegory, should this be how you characterize the story, is that god's attempt to rid the Earth of "people had ruined it" was an utter failure.

.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Miles in post #7]

If god can be said to love, hate, despair, grieve, laugh, rejoice, lament, weep, care; be joyful, sad, compassionate, angry, relieved, and jealous,* why can't he be said to repent, regret, or feel sorry? * Or should we never take these emotions as being anything like those we humans express? If not why not? And if not why bother attributing them to god in the first place?

*all taken from the Bible

That is all anthropomorphism. In classical theism which Catholics hold to, God is impassible, meaning he does not experience passions, because to do so is to change and God doesn't change. To go from say being sad to being relieved in a change in being. One cannot be sad and happy at the same time so God cannot always be experiencing all emotions.

I already addressed the next two verses.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives. "

All scripture is useful to teach people. This doesn't mean all scripture is literal. In fact, we know it cannot be because Jesus spoke in parables sometimes.

Proverbs 30:5
5 You can trust this: Every word that God speaks is true. God is a safe place for those who go to him.

Every word that God speaks is true, but the bible is not God speaking. It is a book written by humans.

Sure they do. Weather an anthropomorphized or unanthropomorphized god, having created the Flood, it's fair to assume he had good reason, otherwise the Flood would have been the work of a lunatic or merely a random act at best. But whatever that reason, the Flood left everything no different than before. Think this should count as some kind of success? I don't. I see it as a wasteful failure, be it a Biblical "fact" or a piece of Biblical fiction.

You are reading the bible the way a child might read it. Have you rever looked into the Jewish PARDEZ for how to understand the bible? There is phsat, the simple, how children read it. But there are 3 other ways, remez, dresh, zod.

Doesn't need to. As noted by the header, "Problems Begin Again," the essential point of this allegory, should this be how you characterize the story, is that god's attempt to rid the Earth of "people had ruined it" was an utter failure.

Accept the story you quoted here was about Noah's son having his way with his passed our father, not about God destroying the world with a flood, which is not really about God destroying all people anyway.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #5

Luke was inspired to interview eye witnesses and create an account based on that. He was not an expert in genealogies.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account... (Luke1:3)

If his account wasn't accurate, then everything wasn't carefully investigated. If everything wasn't carefully investigated, he couldn't have been inspired to say that it was.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #5

Luke was inspired to interview eye witnesses and create an account based on that. He was not an expert in genealogies.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account... (Luke1:3)

If his account wasn't accurate, then everything wasn't carefully investigated. If everything wasn't carefully investigated, he couldn't have been inspired to say that it was.

Luke's account is demonstrably in contradiction with the other syoptics and never mind how they differ from John. Now given that Luke has done some information - gathering - the original synoptic gospels, Josephus, Paul's letters and Q document, he may have claimed that he had made careful investigation (which is not the same as interviewing eyewitnesses) and this he claims the reason why he has to do it all again, because he has something more to say, and that is a substantial rewrite. What Luke is, is absolutely not eyewitness nor reliable, from the Nativity to the Sunday resurrection and onto Acts, which I wouldn't trust any further than I could spit it. Sorry, but your faithclaims fail to persuade under scrutiny.