PDA

View Full Version : Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible



Alkman
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 04:30 AM
About frauds and gaps of the christian dogma and its "holly" books: http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 04:32 PM
Does the Bible really contradict itself, or does it contradict what some people interpret in it?

Take this classic example:


http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Love_Enemy.htm

Jesus seems to disagree with Scripture regarding one’s treatment of enemies.

Scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies, that I might destroy them. (Samuel 22:40-42)...Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Deuteronomy 19:20-22 )

In his second letter to Timothy, Paul confirms that Scripture is the infallible word of God: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

However, Matthew apparently thought that Jesus contradicted Scripture's teaching of destruction of one's enemies, and taking an eye an eye, a life for a life:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39)...Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew 5:38-44)

Was Matthew mistaken about what Jesus said, or was Paul wrong about Scripture being the word of God? Either way, one of these writers must have been wrong. If not, why not?


First off, eye for an eye is a warning against excessive violence. Plus its a law governing a people. Jesus' saying is not law, its directed towards personal affairs not legal matters. Just like "turn the other cheek" is directed at personal affairs not legal matters. In fact Jesus is saying one should not take the law into their own hands, but seek vengence through the state. And as St. Paul later declared, God ordained the state to carry the sword. Although it has been noted by many scholars that "being hit on the right cheek" was a common expression for the times referring to a personal insult. So when Jesus saids "turn the other cheek" hes pretty much saying dont reply to personal insults.

Also I believe the word Jesus uses when saying "love thy enemy" is referring to personal enemies. Jesus nowhere states that one should love public enemies(ie enemies of your folk).

Stríbog
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 06:31 PM
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Which first--beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

How many times did the cock crow?
MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

And my favorite - God must be colorblind!!! :D

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
scarlet - Matthew 27:28

purple John 19:2

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 06:52 PM
You do realize the Gospels were written several years after the death of Jesus and much of what you mention is largely irrelevant. Scarlet or purple, who cares?

Stribog like so many try to debunk the Bible from a literalist point of view. Nevermind the Bible was never meant to be taken literally, and that early Christians were allegorists(hence making the term "Christian fundelmentalism" an oxymoron). Oh well, Stribog seems to think all Christians are Bible-thumping Evengelicals! :eyes

Stríbog
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 07:02 PM
You do realize the Gospels were written several years after the death of Jesus and much of what you mention is largely irrelevant. Scarlet or purple, who cares?

Stribog like so many try to debunk the Bible from a literalist point of view. Nevermind the Bible was never meant to be taken literally, and that early Christians were allegorists(hence making the term "Christian fundelmentalism" an oxymoron). Oh well, Stribog seems to think all Christians are Bible-thumping Evengelicals! :eyes

If some parts of the Bible are embellished or distorted, how can you assume it's worth following at all? Not something by which to live...

The color dispute is a small issue - try looking at the numerous moral contradictions on that list.

Stríbog
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 07:03 PM
Actually the gospels were written several DECADES after the death(s) of Jesus(es).

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 07:08 PM
If some parts of the Bible are embellished or distorted, how can you assume it's worth following at all? Not something by which to live...

You can say that about almost any text. And indeed I have yet to see evidence that scriptures is embellished or distorted except through very trival matters.

Much of it can pretty much fall along these lines:
Mark saids Jesus went to the bathroom at 5pm, but John saids he did at 3:30; oh the Bible contradicts itself and therefore must be untrue!(for those without humor Im being sarcastic)




The color dispute is a small issue - try looking at the numerous moral contradictions on that list.

Like what? And also Jesus made clear that many of those laws were written by man and are not the word of God. That was the purpose of his coming, to set things straight against the perversions of the Pharisees.

Stríbog
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 07:16 PM
Like what? And also Jesus made clear that many of those laws were written by man and are not the word of God.

LOL how about when Jesus told the disciples several times that the poor were blessed, should be cared for, given food, etc. and went to far as to say that men like Lazarus were damned, then, when some woman dumped expensive oil on his feet and the disciples said it should have been sold and the money given to the poor, Jesus yelled at them? :-p

Matthew Ch. 16 and Mark Ch. 14


Or how about all of the "Light of the World" crap and salvation of the world stuff in some passages contrasted with the "only for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" attitude displayed elsewhere?

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 07:28 PM
Jesus was an advocate for the poor, but he was not a Communist. He knew the poor would be with us, but that doesnt mean one should be indifferent to their sufferings. Balance is a big part of his message, but people dont realize this because they either take verses out of context or simply impose extremist interpretations on them.

Jesus was not a pacifist, but neither does he want people killing each other left and right; hence "turn the other cheek".

Stríbog
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 09:21 PM
You ignored the point about Jesus coming to save Israel vs. coming to save the world. Furthermore, Christianity is saddled with the entire weight of the Old Testament's barbarity. Jesus embraced this rather than repudiating it when given the chance.

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 09:26 PM
You ignored the point about Jesus coming to save Israel vs. coming to save the world.

If Im not mistaken Jesus said he came first for the nation of Israel and then preach to the world. If you want to save the world, dont you want to begin with your own people?



Furthermore, Christianity is saddled with the entire weight of the Old Testament's barbarity. Jesus embraced this rather than repudiating it when given the chance.

Yes and no. Jesus embraced the Old Testament but rejected the perversions of it done by the Pharisees. This is something people dont understand, Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament; Judaism teaches that the oral tradition has greater strength and more authority than the OT. In fact the Jewish leadership literally had to rewrite and edit the OT in order for it to fit in with their viewpoint; thus the Jamnian canon.