Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook

Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions

Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions October 20, 2018

Bible contradictions

You’ve probably seen lists of Bible contradictions. Here are my favorites. Play along at home and see which of these are your list, too.

My focus here is just on contradictions in the Bible. These are mostly clashes between two sets of verses in the Bible, but some are the Bible clashing with reality. (I’ve written about the Bible clashing with science here.)

There are lots of contradictions that I find fairly trivial. For example, that Ahaziah was 22 (or 42) years old when he became king (2 Kings 8:26 vs. 2 Chronicles 22:2). Or that Solomon had made a basin that was ten cubits in diameter and thirty in circumference (1 Kings 7:23). The contradictions on this list are much more fundamental attacks on the Christian message.

1. Christians sin, just like everyone else (or do they?)

Everyone knows that no human except Jesus lived a sinless life. The Bible says:

Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

This is standard Christian dogma, but things get confusing when you read the opening verse of Job, which says of Job, “This man was blameless and upright.” Even as his life was going to hell because of Satan and God’s little experiment, Job was vindicated in his belief that he had nothing to apologize for.

We see another example in Noah, who was also “blameless” (Genesis 6:9).

But the sinless net goes a lot wider than that, because (plot twist!) ordinary Christians don’t sin.

No one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him (1 John 5:18; see also 1 John 3:6, 3:9).

So which is it—are all people sinners, or are Christians the exception?

Addendum: But why worry about sin? Every one of us is already saved.

Paul draws a parallel between the man who got us into this mess (Adam, who ate the forbidden fruit and gave mankind Original Sin) and the one who got us out (Jesus, whose perfect sacrifice saved us all).

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous (Romans 5:19).

We didn’t opt in to get the sin of Adam, and we needn’t opt in to get the salvation of Jesus. No belief is necessary. Paul assures us we’re good.

2. The women spread the word of the empty tomb (or did they?)

Women discovered the empty tomb of Jesus and returned to tell the others.

The women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples (Matthew 28:8).

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others (Luke 24:9).

Or did they? Mark has a different ending.

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (Mark 16:8)

And that’s how the original version of the gospel of Mark ended.

3. All Christians are united in what they believe about Jesus (right?)

[Jesus said,] I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one. . . . I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. (John 17:20–23)

I appeal to you . . . that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. (1 Corinthians 1:10)

That’s a nice thought, but has any prayer failed more spectacularly? Christianity is more than just Roman Catholics and Baptists and Methodists and maybe a few more—there are now 45,000 denominations, and Christianity is fragmenting at a rate of two new denominations per day. (h/t commenter Greg G.)

4. No one can see God (or can they?)

No one has ever seen God (1 John 4:12).

No man has seen or can see [God] (1 Timothy 6:16).

But Adam and Eve saw God. So did Abraham and Moses:

The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day (Genesis 18:1).

The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend (Exodus 33:11).

5. God’s rules keep changing

God made an “everlasting covenant” with Abraham, but then he tore that one up and made another one with Moses.

The New Testament continues the confusion. It can’t decide whether to look backwards and honor existing law or to tear it up yet again, because it says both. First, Jesus commits to existing law:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17–18)

But then the book of Hebrews weaves a legal case that argues that Jesus is a priest in the line of Melchizedek, which ought to take priority over the existing priesthood in the line of Aaron. Here it quotes an Old Testament declaration of God to justify a new covenant.

The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. (see Hebrews 8:6–13)

Jesus is a dramatic change to Judaism, and there must be some logic to justify Christians changing their worship day, dropping the sacrifices, worshiping a new guy in addition to Yahweh, and so on. That rationalizes away one problem, but the overall problem—the various substories don’t fit together in the overall plot—remains. (More: “The Bible Story Reboots. Have You Noticed?”)

Continued in part 2.

I always refer to the Bible as the world’s oldest,
longest-running, most widespread,
and least deservedly respected Rorschach Test.
You can look at it and see whatever you want.
And everybody does.
— Richard S. Russell

.

Image via Adrian Scottow, CC license
.

"The thing that gets me is the desperation for absolutes, in terms of truth, knowledge ..."

Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions
"I hate that! That might just be what drove me from Christianity. You can't go ..."

When Christianity Hits Reality: the William ..."
"Ah I see, he really imagines imaginary stuff to be real. If people like this ..."

When Christianity Hits Reality: the William ..."
"It's a given I am not a master debater like everyone here seems to be ..."

When Christianity Hits Reality: the William ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • You can see a variety of #1 in action on an almost daily basis – many Christian apologists was lyrical about how God’s saving grace enables Christians to be more moral than everyone else… just to fall back on the whole “human fallen status” trope as soon as some member of the club gets caught red handed – which happens just as often as it does with non-Christian folks.

    Which by the way is much more humiliating for God himself than it is for Christians, since their behaviour basically tells the World that his grace isn’t that effective, after all.

  • Cozmo the Magician

    to TRULY explore this topic there is a fun and interactive website. I wonder how many xtian’s heads have gone all xlpody when they see it (; Nah, who am I kidding, they WON’T see it, or just discount it as a work of satan.

    http://bibviz.com/

  • Jim Jones

    BibViz Project – Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

    http://bibviz.com/

  • According to historians Mark was also the first Gospel. So the ending was likely to explain why people hadn’t heard that before, contra what apologists tell us.

    • Greg G.

      Exactly. Apologists say the fact that it was women is supposed to show that the story is true because nobody would say it was women if it wasn’t true because it would throw doubt on the story. But if the point was to explain why nobody heard it, then blame the women.

      • Mhm, it works both ways. Also, if so many Jews saw these miracles, how come so few converted? Christianity took off with pagans in other lands. Of course, they can claim that most Jews were just “stiff-necked”, but come on. As for the women, their being present makes perfect sense for Jewish readers at the time, or those familiar with the culture, as preparing the dead was done by women. Interesting to note-in no Gospel story does any person witness Jesus rise from the dead. They only see him alive afterward. Lazarus’s rising is witnessed, plus some other people, but not Jesus. Maybe they though it was too special for unclean human eyes?

        • I’d rather ask why there’re no historical records of that happening.

        • Lark62

          And 500 zombies rose from the dead and roamed Jerusalem and no one noticed. As deity’s, Yahweh is pretty pathetic.

        • Greg G.

          The zombies “visited” people in Jerusalem. The people didn’t report it because they didn’t have any brains left.

          I think you have reconciled the 500 from 1 Corinthians 15 and where they are mentioned in the gospels.

        • Lark62

          Good catch!

        • Right, large crowds saw this yet no one wrote of it for decades.

        • I think it’s worse with those phenomena that supposedly marked Jesus’ death. Chinese astronomers, nor other cultures, did not register something like that despite happening in all the Earth (which creates problems in those places at night).

          It would not be a problem if some Fundies made fools of themselves claiming that it’s far more believable that the Big Bang theory.

        • At least the people on the day side would have noticed this, and if there was no eclipse it would indeed be inexplicable. They set themselves up for a fall here by claiming such an obviously non-existent miracle. Yet most people don’t seem to care. That deeply disturbs me.

        • Saw the Wiki and scholars coincide it was an invention, since said events were said to mark the death of important people.

          Scholars, not Fundies, who think that was real and equal knowledge with the Serpent (read: Satan, even if in Judaism such identification does not exist)

        • No one seems to try defending it much I’ve seen, probably since it clearly didn’t happen.

          Yes, attack the infidel rather than answer the argument made.

        • Pofarmer

          The star and the eclipse are both consistend with claims made of other rulers.

        • Greg G.

          But the darkness was supposed to have happened at the time of the passover which is during the full moon. A solar eclipse can only happen at the time of a new moon.

          Josephus (Jewish Wars 6.5.3) says there were lots of signs before the war that befuddled everyone. A star resembling a sword over the city, a comet that lasted a year, a great light that illuminated the altar and holy house at night for a half hour during passover, a heifer gave birth to a lamb at the same festival, one of the heavy temple doors swung open by itself, some saw chariots and soldiers in the clouds, and some sort of quake in the inner court of the temple.

          Some seemed to think those were signs the Messiah was coming while others thought it meant they would be overrun by invaders.

        • Stories like this seem to be common. In fact there are many from ancient Rome too, along with India, China etc. Doubtless all cultures have them. Yet the Christians seem uninterested in them, and claim that their religion is proven with miracles. How funny, isn’t it?

        • That reminds me of the theme in several gospels of Jesus being unrecognizable. Mary didn’t recognize him (thought he was the gardener), and the guys on the road to Emmaus walked with him for hours without recognizing him.

          What’s that all about?

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          Wasn’t that one of the elements pulled into the story from Greek literature? The hero in disguise?

          If this was based on something literal, then my guess would be that it was just some dude pretending to be Jesus, saying he had risen from the dead in an attempt to get some free food and maybe some tail from Jesus’ female followers.

        • Greg G.

          Odysseus pretended to be a beggar when he returned home. When his nanny was washing his feet she recognized his scar. Her name, Eurycleia, means “good fame” as opposed to Odysseus’ real mother whose name meant “anti-fame” (“Antecleia” or something like that). (I barely have time to type this so the names may not be precisely correct.) In Mark, when the woman anoints him with expensive nard, he states that she will be famous. Both women recognized the guy for who he was.

        • sandy

          You might not be looking at your best if you’ve been dead for 3 days?

        • Nothing that a little spackle and makeup couldn’t fix. And deodorant.

        • RichardSRussell

          Duct tape for the stuff that’s supposed to stick together, WD-40 for the rest.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Which was the women’s job, but they just didn’t get there early enough.

        • ildi

          Words to live by!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Still…ya’d like ta think yer Ma…and best buddies, would still be able to recognise ya.

          The counter to not looking one’s best after three days [actually only one and a half], is that a zombie Jesus was dandering about the Levant like something from the Walking Dead and no one seemed to notice.

          Can’t have it both ways.

        • I don’t know, maybe that he was very ordinary-looking? Which Mary was it though? His mother at least should recognize him.

        • Greg G.

          Mary Magdalene in John 20:14-15.

        • Ah, okay.

        • Ignorant Amos

          In the Gospel of Peter is there a Resurrection narrative that details Jaysus coming out of the tomb…but very few take that woo-woo seriously…even Christians can’t swallow such fuckwittery. Though John Dominic Crossan takes it seriously, just not the way Christians want.

        • The one with the talking cross, right? Funny the places where they draw the line.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s not just quite as daft when read from John Dominic Crossan’s perspective.

          The Cross Gospel, as JDC calls it, is not to be read literally.

          Central to Crossan’s methodology is the dating of texts. This is laid out more or less fully in The Historical Jesus in one of the appendices. He dates part of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas to the 50s CE, as well as the first layer of the hypothetical Q Document (in this he is heavily dependent on the work of John Kloppenborg). He also assigns a portion of the Gospel of Peter, which he calls the “Cross Gospel”, to a date preceding the synoptic gospels, the reasoning of which is laid out more fully in The Cross that Spoke: The Origin of the Passion Narratives. He believes the “Cross Gospel” was the forerunner to the passion narratives in the canonical gospels. He does not date the synoptics until the mid to late 70s CE, starting with the Gospel of Mark and ending with Luke in the 90s. As for the Gospel of John, he believes part was constructed at the beginning, and another part closer to the middle, of the 2nd century CE. Following Rudolf Bultmann, he believes there is an earlier “Signs Source” for John as well. His dating methods and conclusions are quite controversial, particularly regarding the dating of Thomas and the “Cross Gospel”. Again, the very early dating of these non-canonical sources is not accepted by the vast majority of biblical scholars.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan

          Demonstrating that NT scholars really are all over the place.

          More here…

          http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jesus/johndominiccrossan.html

        • Well yes, if you don’t take all this literally it solves many problems.

      • ephemerol

        Mansplaining the Jesus myth since c.70AD…

  • ephemerol

    Christianity is what you get when you cross Mesopotamian paganism (Judaism) with classical Hellenistic “mystery” religion, and that fusion gives rise to my favorite contradiction.

    But what, you might ask, is the “mystery” in a mystery cult? In short, the “mystery” is the recipe, or roadmap, for how to get to heaven. In antiquity it was a “mystery” because it was a secret, and you had to be an initiate before you could learn what they were. Because christianity is a fusion of more than one religion, it contains the contradiction of having more than one “mystery.” One roadmap comes from Judaism, and it says that the way to get to heaven is through the works of the law, while the other comes from the Jesus cult, and it says the way to get to heaven is by obtaining the grace through faith in the cult figure. And the more you read the NT to try to sort out what it says about how to get to heaven, the more confused you’ll get. On the one hand it’s a “gift” that is “free” (but it comes with a hefty price tag), on the other, “faith” is all you need, but without works, it isn’t all you need after all, an on the third hand, it’s reserved only for those who “overcome.” Worse yet, many of these pivotal words are left largely undefined. The last word is that there is no last word: it’s still a mystery because if you try to take into account everything the NT says about how to get to heaven, rather than just taking one passage to the exclusion of those that contradict it, all you get is a confused, contradictory mess.

    Google maps will frequently give you more than one way to reach your destination, but both of those routes will be on just one map. The bible gives you two maps and the route suggested each will not work if you attempt to plot it on the other map, because the maps themselves don’t agree. Rather than being a fatal flaw, I think the contradictory nature of the christian bible in its most essential nature is actually the secret of christianity’s success: it keeps you chasing your tail so long to try to figure out what it is that it’s trying to tell you to do, that by the time you catch on to the fact that you’re being conned with an unwinnable game, you’ve either forgotten what the point of the game was and what it was you were looking for that you thought christianity would help you find, or else you’re already dead.

    • grasshopper

      One of the mysteries of life is why it is considered that Life Is A Mystery, and a Big Question, along with Why Are We Here? These sorts of attitudes beg their own questions. I would like to see some criteria that defines a Big Question other than just being amazed at your own existence .

      By the way, ephemerol, I like your google maps analogy very much 🙂

      • Great insight, thanks.

      • ephemerol

        My other analogy for this is a compass that has two needles which never agree.

    • Another benefit of the contradictions (surprising to me) is that the Bible says just about anything. That means that (by changing your selection criteria) it can be made to suit different situations and different believers. Loving or violent, that’s in there; mythical or science-y, that’s in there; demanding or quick to forgive, that’s in there.

      What sinks the entire project is the contradiction, but if the Christian doesn’t let that rise so that they can consider it, it’s not a problem.

      • Fundies are experts at overriding said problems, and of course they will cherry-pick whatever they want, choosing what best serves their interests. At the same time that consider texts to be inerrant and without faults.

      • ephemerol

        Yes, and as Michael, grasshopper, and Alec have also more-or-less pointed out as well, since the plurality of the bible text’s opinions (James 1:8 comes to mind: double-minded and unstable in all it’s ways) have made it malleable enough to be adopted within the context of many different cultures in many different lands over the last 2,000 years, as the sects that arise from that multiply, that serves as the basis for no end of crusades and inquisitions. The less sense it makes, the broader it’s appeal is and the more fodder there is for all the suckers to distract themselves with. Then you throw in on top the whole “carrot and stick” routine (heaven and hell), and it’s a fait accompli. Bible-god is arguably one of the most prolific authors of confusion that has ever (not really) existed (1 Corinthians 14:33).

    • It also provides lots of different ways for people to interpret things, and thus creates many sects.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        So religions multiply by having sects?

        • Maybe, if you consider them to be different religions at that point.

  • grasshopper

    … Solomon had made a basin that was ten cubits in diameter and thirty in circumference (1 Kings 7:23)

    I carry a tape-measure with me when I purchase crockery, and I reject any plate, saucer or cup which doesn’t measure up to “Solomon’s ratio”.
    I don’t have a lot of crockery.

    • You need to see with the eye of faith, Grasshopper.

      • Ignorant Amos

        Said Master Po to Caine….

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      “…what a *crock*…”

      😉

  • Matt Brooker (Syncretocrat)

    An interesting side to this question is how different categories of contradiction are more or less significant to atheists and believers (particularly Biblical literalists, unsurprisingly). Dan Barker tells a story of arguing Biblical contradictions with a fundamentalist in a debate, and every one of Barker’s points that struck at doctrine (as in the examples you list above) were easily deflected by sophistry, and while the defenses may have sounded ridiculously contrived to the non-believer, they went down just fine with the literalists in the audience. What really struck home was that very example you cited of the measurements of Solomon’s basin in 1 Kings 7:23, because there was no way to reconcile two clearly stated different figures. Now obviously, everybody’s different, and not every literalists will be troubled by the same things, but it goes to show there may be value in having a couple of those “trivial” examples to hand when arguing contradictions.

  • Scooter

    There may be some copyist errors that you correctly refer to as trivial such as the age of Ahaziah. Was he 22 or 42? This is easy to figure out from another Biblical text found in 2 Kings 8:17. Ahaziah’s father was 32 when he became king. His father died when he was 40 so obviously Ahaziah could not have been 42 when his father died, The scribes although meticulous made the odd error when copying, but these errors in spelling of proper names or numbers were in fact trivial, and do not change Christian beliefs.

    • Zeropoint

      Well, that’s a problem because 1) many claim that the Bible is inerrant, and yet, it has errors, and 2) if it has admitted errors in things like that, who’s to say it doesn’t have bigger, more important errors?

    • Greg G.

      Riggt, there are errors in the Bible. There are lots of things that cannot be cross checked so you have reason to doubt everything.

      • Despite that some will claim that is BS and there’ve been no errors copying it -I remember the proof they used were manuscripts of the early centuries-. But Fundies are Fundies.

        • Greg G.

          But, but, but we have Scooter’s authority telling us “but these errors in spelling of proper names or numbers were in fact trivial”.

          I pointed out in another reply in this article’s comment section that Mark 1:41 has Jesus react with compassion in most manuscripts but with anger in the older manuscripts. That cannot be trivial. They need a bigger broom and a bigger rug to sweep it under.

    • Ficino

      So God is not the Lord of mathematics? Yahweh lets mathematical errors exist in his holy text, which is to be the standard for all human knowledge and right action?

      Another quality control failure to add to the list.

    • Max Doubt

      “The scribes although meticulous made the odd error when copying…”

      So okay, there are errors in the Christian bible. Is there any objective way to differentiate between the allegedly correct statements and the incorrect?

    • But you are saying that the Bible was wrong.

      That doesn’t trouble me. That’s why I’ve focused on errors that attack more fundamental principles.

      • ildi

        It’s all moot: https://www.christianpost.com/news/most-evangelicals-believe-god-accepts-worship-of-all-religions-study-shows-227980/

        In the survey in which a representative sample of 3,000 Americans were interviewed, evangelicals were asked about their views on a series of theological statements including: “God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.”

        Some 51 percent of respondents were shown to agree with the statement, while 42 percent disagreed.

        Among other troubling theology embraced by evangelicals according to the survey, is that a majority of evangelicals believe that most people are basically good by nature and that Jesus was the first and greatest being created by God the Father — some 78 percent of evangelicals agree with this.

    • If there’re errors, the Bible cannot be inerrant as fundagelicals say. Just like when there’re two different creation tales mixed in Genesis and evidence of later tamperings, as the woman who was going to be stoned, thought to have later been added.

  • Jennny

    I live in a celtic country with strong oral traditions and it’s made me think how unreliable oral tradition is, chinese whispers are a real thing. And ask 3 people who’ve witnessed the same accident and you can get 3 very different versions. Apparently in places where oral tradition has always existed, checks are included, like a lot of repetition or rhyming, but I really can’t believe stories aren’t changed in the telling from one village to the next. And here, there are at least 2 traditions about ancient celtic monuments that are not that at all, they were invented to attract tourists when the railway first came through in the 1860s. (And some well-meaning intelligent locals still believe them to be authentic – I know cos I’ve asked them, heritage means so much to them.)

    • Christians want to pretend that no one shared the Jesus story without first memorizing the entire gospel story and passing a rigorous test.

      The Homeric epics were deliberately changed as told to better suit the audience.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      *Rashomon*

      • Ignorant Amos

        A had to Google that one…nice.

        • Greg G.

          I had to Wikipedia it. It had Toshiro Mifune in it. I knew him from Midway. That movie had a slew of stars: Charlton Heston, Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, even Tom Selleck sans mustache.

          My favorite part is:

          Captain Garth: How much can you decipher?
          Commander Rochefort: Fifteen percent.
          Captain Garth: Really decipher?
          Commander Rochefort: Ten percent.
          Captain Garth: Ten percent? That’s one word in ten, Joe! You’re *guessing*!
          Commander Rochefort: [slightly hurt] We like to call it “analysis.”

          Captain Garth = Henry Fonda
          Commander Rochefort = Hal Holbrook

    • ildi

      Reminds me of this: Not long after R&H wrote the song, Theodore Bikel was leaving the theatre when he found a fan and fellow immigrant waiting at the stage door for his autograph: “I love that ‘Edelweiss’,” said the theatregoer. “Of course, I have known it a long time, but only in German.”
      https://www.steynonline.com/6683/edelweiss

      • Jennny

        That’s funny. Here, welsh language eisteddfodau, choral festivals are a big thing. DD interviewed parents bringing their children – part of her college course, and asked how old these festivals were and was surprised most thought they pretty much went back to the dawn of time, but in fact they were invented by a guy in the 19th century who claimed to have discovered old manuscripts about them. Actually he had forged these documents. DD also asked about the ancient poetry the children’s groups recited and again parents said these were traditionally celtic and very old. She pointed out that for that year’s competition, groups had to recite a poem about a local guy who played soccer for Manchester United!

        • ildi

          I thought Manchester United went back to the dawn of time…

  • Did pagans wanting to become Christians have to become Jews first.
    The answer over 2000 years ago was a resounding no.
    So the references to Jewish Cultural laws and arguments that Christians are bound to them are completely irrelevant.
    But people who want to argue will argue regardless.

    • Pope Hilarius II

      so, christians don’t follow the 10 commandments? Interesting

      • Greg G.

        Trinitarians break two of them. They have more than one god and lie about it with 3 = 1.

      • Moral law and cultural law aren’t one and the same.

        • Pope Hilarius II

          so, do they follow the 10 or not?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Is that like how fundagelicals insist there are both ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ evolution, in defiance of the scientists who say there’s no such difference except in time duration?

      • Yeah, but how can you hate fags without the Old Testament? See things from the standpoint of Westboro Baptist church.

    • The answer over 2000 years ago was a resounding no.

      I don’t think that means what you think it means.

      It was a no from Paul. From the James contingent, the story was different. The fundamental christian disagreements we see today look like those that go all the way back to the beginning.

  • Ficino

    how about also:
    1. Paul in I Cor 15 says that the risen Jesus appeared “first” to Cephas. But in John, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene.
    2. who bought the Field of Blood – Judas or the priests?

    • Greg G.

      Why was it called the Field of Blood? Was it because it was bought with blood money, per Matthew, or because Judas’ guts spilled out all over it, per Acts? Or was it called the Valley of Slaughter, per Jeremiah 19:5-6 because people were killed there? Or was it a potter’s field and ironically called the “Field of Blood” because it was red clay?

      • Ficino

        Yes, praise God!

        lol

    • Greg G.

      In Mark 1:40, a leper politely begged Jesus to heal him. Did Jesus react with compassion, per most manuscripts, or with anger, per the older manuscripts?

  • Ficino

    Two biblical assertions contradicted by records closer to the date, cited from memory (I’m too lazy to track down the references):
    1. The Tel Dan Stele says that the king of the Arameans killed both Jehoram and Ahaziah in battle, contradicting II Kings on the death of Jehoram. There is dispute about some parts of the reconstruction of the stele, but it doesn’t make the OT look accurate.
    2. Assyrian records show that Hezekiah got the Assyrians to call off their siege of Jerusalem by paying hefty tribute to Sennacherib, incl his daughters, and swore to renew his vassalship. It wasn’t that the angel of the lord slew the entire Assyrian army.

  • Ficino

    Of course, biblical contradictions don’t matter when you’ve got … wait for it … ACT – POTENCY!!

    Sorry, folks.

  • NeoBlaise

    The article should be re-titled to: Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions or Just 1 More Damned Fool?

  • Markus R

    “What I Don’t Understand in the Bible” would be a better title. There are no truths concerning God’s messsage to mankind that are contradicted in the Bible. But if you don’t believe in God, why should you be so concerned about disproving the Bible?

    • Max Doubt

      “There are no truths concerning God’s messsage to mankind that are contradicted in the Bible.”

      So there are errors in the Christian bible. Is there any objective way to differentiate between the allegedly correct statements and the incorrect? Or do we just take some Christian’s word for it? And when Christians disagree, what then? I’m sure you’d agree Christians have an awfully big mess to clean up there, and pretty obviously none of them have the wherewithal to do it. Will you take on the job?

      • Markus R

        Great question. It involves going to the enormous collection of ancient texts in existence. Unlike other classics, such as Greek and Roman texts of antiquity, we have not only a hundred times as many, we have fragments that can be traced to the first and second centuries. Think of it this way—we’ve got a 100-piece jigsaw puzzle with 105 pieces. This gives the ability to use textual criticism and determine errors and the original message. In doing so we find that 99% consist of errors of spelling and copy and other errors that do not alter the meaning in the original languages. The others are the existence of verses in a minority of manuscripts that do not appear in the majority and the oldest copies.

        • No, no fragments from the first century. There are likely fragments from the second century (counting “about 200 CE” as second century), but now our “impressively old” manuscripts are just a handful, not hundreds.

          I explore one facet of biblical reliability in this post:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/04/a-simple-thought-experiment-defeats-claim-that-bible-is-accurate/

        • Greg G.

          The others are the existence of verses in a minority of manuscripts that do not appear in the majority and the oldest copies.

          Mark 1:41 says Jesus reacted to a leper begging him to be healed. Most manuscripts said he reacted with compassion but the older manuscripts say he acted with anger.

          Scholars, as a rule, go with the harder reading, figuring that a scribe is more likely to accentuate the positive than the negative. But there is no way to know for sure.

          There are no fragments that can be traced to the first century. There was a claim about a first century manuscript but that turned into a great big embarrassment after several years.

          One of the oldest of fragments has some missing text cannot say what other manuscripts say. There must be at least one word missing. Which word? Does it say what they think it says? Few, if any, New Testament books can be reconstructed from second century fragments.

          But even if you can get back to a single manuscript, you won’t know how many copy generations away from the original it is. It has been shown that there are more changes between the manuscripts before canonization than after. That means there is no reason to think the earliest copies were reliable either.

          Stop trying to exaggerate the reliability of the New Testament. What we have shows that it is fiction based on the fictional literature of the day. The early epistles don’t even talk about a first century Jesus. They rely on the Old Testament for their information about Jesus.

        • Scholars, as a rule, go with the harder reading, figuring that a scribe is more likely to accentuate the positive than the negative. But there is no way to know for sure.

          Peter denied Jesus 3 times. Why would they put that in if it weren’t true, since it makes a patriarch look bad. That’s a tough question to answer until you consider that people who didn’t like Peter (the Pauline faction) might well have put that in.

          As you point out, the Criterion of Embarrassment can be a tricky tool to use.

        • Max Doubt

          “Great question. It involves going to the enormous collection of ancient texts in existence. Unlike other classics, such as Greek and Roman texts of antiquity, we have not only a hundred times as many,…”

          Sounds like you’re pulling a number out of your ass. Care to explain how you came up with “a hundred times as many”?

          “… we have fragments that can be traced to the first and second centuries. Think of it this way—we’ve got a 100-piece jigsaw puzzle with 105 pieces.”

          Then the puzzle is fucked up, eh?

          “This gives the ability to use textual criticism and determine errors and the original message.”

          Interestingly, nobody seems to have done that yet. Or can you give us the title of the book where that distillation is described?

          “In doing so we find that 99% consist of errors of spelling and copy and other errors that do not alter the meaning in the original languages.”

          So it’s 99%, is it? I’m sure you’ll be able to explain how you got that number. Or admit you just pulled it out of your ass. Or demonstrate your abject dishonesty by ignoring that issue.

          “The others are the existence of verses in a minority of manuscripts that do not appear in the majority and the oldest copies.”

          It looks a lot like nobody knows where we can find the results of that analysis. Or maybe nobody has done that analysis. Or you know what it really looks like? You’re just making shit up again.

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          “So it’s 99%, is it? I’m sure you’ll be able to explain how you got that number.”

          It’s probably a number he heard from his pastor. And since his pastor is a true Man of God™, he’s never wrong.

        • Max Doubt

          “It’s probably a number he heard from his pastor. And since his pastor is a true Man of God™, he’s never wrong.”

          I suppose life is easier for people who just believe what their authority figures tell them. I’ll admit to an occasional twinge of envy.

        • Sophotroph

          Oh, now you’ve done it. You’ve shown him wrong with no way for him to weasel out of it.

          Now he’ll just ignore this part of the thread like it never happened and argue further up/down.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          One sentence fragments aren’t very useful.

          And if state religion didn’t have more copies of its writings around I’d be flabbergasted.

          You’re NOT helping your case with such idiocies.

        • Ignorant Amos

          …we have fragments that can be traced to the first and second centuries.

          There are no first century fragments of the NT in existence…so you are lying…ignorant…stupid….or all three.

        • Pofarmer

          Are there even any fragments from the second?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not with any confidence.

    • Lark62

      There are no truths concerning God’s messsage to mankind that are contradicted in the Bible.

      FTFY

    • That’s an interesting claim, but you need evidence. Make an argument for us.

      But if you don’t believe in God, why should you be so concerned about disproving the Bible?

      I’m just sharing information that may be interesting to Christians. Isn’t that a good thing? Shouldn’t all Christians be aware of these issues?

      If Christianity were just a hobby like knitting or a belief no more destructive than “cats are the best pets,” then I’d find something else to do. But Christianity is used as a club within American society. That’s the problem.

    • Maybe because believers are attempting to force down on non-believers their ideas. Just to begin with.

    • Joe

      There are no truths concerning God’s messsage to mankind that are contradicted in the Bible.

      That seems to be a very definitive statement considering the only way we know of one particular god’s “message to mankind” is via the bible. If indeed the bible is a message to mankind and not just a collection of texts from an already established religion.

      • Markus R

        I’m referring to internal consistency—there are no errors in the tranmissiin if the Bible that affect the truths contained therein.

        • Joe

          If there is very little internal inconsistency in the Iliad, does that make any of it true, or false for that matter?

          EDITED: Spelling

        • Markus R

          Not at all. The topic is contradictions in the Bible.

        • Joe

          Which tells us very little of anything.

        • Greg G.

          Matthew, Mark, and Luke say the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus happened on Friday. John says it was all on Thursday. That is an internal inconsistency about the most important event in Christianity.

        • Markus R

          A difference in days, not in the fact that it occurred.

        • Greg G.

          If the gospels can’t get it straight which day it was, how can you trust them to get it right?

          Mark teaches what “Bar” means when he says what “Bartimaeus” means. He has Jesus open the Gethsemane prayer with “Abba, Father” to teach that “Abba” means “Father”, so when Barabbas is introduced, the reader should understand that there are two people called “Son of the Father”. Then one is killed for sins and the other is released into the wilderness, the way one goat is killed for the sins of the people while the other is released into the wilderness in Leviticus 16:5-22. But the problem is that the ritual is for Yom Kippur, Atonement Day, which is about five months after Passover.

          John’s theology is more about Jesus being the Passover Lamb so he changes the death to Thursday, which is Preparation Day, when the Passover lambs are killed.

          So there is a lot wrong here. There are two different theologies.

          Then there is the Mocking of Jesus that follows the bit about Barabbas. Compare it to Philo’s Flaccus Book VI which is the Mocking of Carabbas. The spelling in Greek for Barabbas and Carabbas is the same after the first letter of each. The youths accost Carabbas, taking him to the gymnasium, dress him in a door mat for a cloak, make a crown of papyrus leaf, give him a scepter made of papyrus, then act like he is a king. They call out “Maris” which is what they call the “kings of the Syrians” as if he was Agrippa. Mark used all of that, making “kings of the Syrians” into “King of the Jews”.

          John even borrowed that part. So do Matthew and Luke.

          Mark invented the story from other literature but John alters it a little for theological reasons.

          So, yes, the day of the week is a small point compared to the whole story being completely contrived from other literature.

          Edited a fat finger and a tense adjustment.

        • Markus R

          It’s not your analysis of the Bible that keeps you from believing. It’s the God presented in the Bible who is holy and who will judge your sins. You aren’t lacking evidence.

        • rogero

          Typical ‘christian’. You run out of arguments and resort to infantile threats of imaginary retribution. Oooooh…scary !

        • “My big brother will fix you! Then you’ll be sorry!”

        • Greg G.

          My next-door neighbor’s kid can beat up your next-door neighbor’s kid.

        • Otto

          If the religion you follow relies on threats to spread its message it is a shitty religion.

        • Markus R

          Which proves my point—it’s the God of the Bible that people reject.

        • Greg G.

          It’s the god thingy that cannot be distinguished from any other imaginary god thingy that people reject for that reason.

        • Markus R

          Keep fighting, Greg. Why so much energy in trying to disprove something you don’t believe in? Do you spend your time arguing against the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

        • Sophotroph

          If the proponents of the Tooth Fairy were attempting to build a theocracy where various religious/ethnic/other minorities were to be considered second class citizens, we’d fight them too.

          Thankfully, we’re winning.

        • ildi

          I don’t know what country you’re in, but in the U.S. the Kavanaugh confirmation brings that into question…

        • Ignorant Amos

          Even in the US we’re wining…just not as efficiently as elsewhere…which is a great pity.

        • Greg G.

          Do you spend your time arguing against the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

          When they are adults and still believe stuff like that, I do. Are you saying you do not try to convince adults who believe that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are real that they are wrong? Or do your arguments against SC and TF strike too close to your religious beliefs?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Why so much energy in trying to disprove something you don’t believe in?”

          Because you assholes enslaved to the meme are trying to force the rest of us GOOD PEOPLE to live according to the stupid superstitions of your rules.

        • Markus R

          What makes a “good” person, Hairy?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Compassion and an understanding and acceptance of consent.

          YOUR KIND have neither, and glory in it.

        • Tommy

          It’s a good thing who lump in your believes with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. 😉

        • ildi

          Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are not abusive wankers like your god who likes blood sacrifices and makes up shitty rules about sex and ownership of other people.

          [edit fixed clause]

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          “Do you spend your time arguing against the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?”

          No, because we don’t have assholes coming to the comment sections of blogs we read telling us that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are totally for real things that we must worship or be burned forever.

        • Greg G.

          Fairyists are not known for pogroms against those who don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Never underestimate the violence associated with what was fairy belief in the past. or how Christianity commandeered such beliefs to it’s own ends.

          https://www.transceltic.com/irish/changelings-fairies-deities-and-saints-integration-of-irish-christianity-and-fairy-tale-belief

          Fairies were once gods and goddesses prior to the invasion of Christianity. Each sept…or clan…had their favourites, and were believed to help in battle.

          The oldest body of myths stemming from the Heroic Age is found only from the early medieval period of Ireland. As Christianity began to take over, the gods and goddesses were slowly eliminated as such from the culture. What has survived includes material dealing with the Tuatha Dé Danann and the Fomorians, which forms the basis for the text Cath Maige Tuired “The Battle of Mag Tuireadh”, as well as portions of the history-focused Lebor Gabála Érenn (“The Book of Invasions”). The Tuatha Dé represent the functions of human society such as kingship, crafts and war, while the Fomorians represent chaos and wild nature.

          It interferes everywhere, doesn’t it?

          The Tuath Dé eventually became the Aos Sí or “fairies” of later folklore.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatha_D%C3%A9_Danann

          The aos sí (pronounced [eːsˠ ˈʃiː]; older form aes sídhe [eːsˠ ˈʃiːə]) is the Irish term for a supernatural race in Irish mythology and Scottish mythology (where it is usually spelled Sìth, but pronounced the same), comparable to the fairies or elves.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aos_S%C3%AD

          All very convoluted am sure, but ya get the picture.

        • Because Christians are blundering through American society damaging things. Can this possibly be new to you?

        • Markus R

          Hmmm. I gave up voting in national elections 20 years ago. How am I messing up things for you, Bob?

        • That’s nice. And that’s no concern of mine, since I’m talking about Christians. Your not voting doesn’t solve the problem.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Dumb fucker.

          Because Christians, and by extension the imaginary crap the believe, means no harm? Wise ta fuck up.

          Why not learn something before coming out with silly shite.

          WHY ARE YOU ATHEISTS SO ANGRY?

          Why are atheists angry? Is it because they’re selfish, joyless, lacking in meaning, and alienated from God? Or is it because they have legitimate reasons to be angry–and are ready to do something about it? Armed with passionate outrage, absurdist humor, and calm intelligence, popular blogger Greta Christina makes a powerful case for outspoken atheist activism, and explains the empathy and justice that drive it. This accessible, personal, down-to-earth book speaks not only to atheists, but also to believers who want to understand the so-called new atheism. Why Are You Atheists So Angry? drops a bombshell on the destructive force of religious faith–and gives a voice to millions of angry atheists.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUI_ML1qkQE

        • Markus R

          Ignorant Amos, you seem to suggest that atheists don’t believe imaginary stuff. Yet I have not heard of any atheistic foundation if truth that is certain, i.e., might not be imaginary. You might be imaginary, Amos. How do you know you aren’t?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ignorant Amos, you seem to suggest that atheists don’t believe imaginary stuff.

          And you seem to be constructing a strawman. I know full well that there are atheist that belief all manner of woo-woo…I’ve engaged a number of them on various forums. They are not great in number, but yes, they exist. But that is irrelevant. What they don’t believe in is gods. So whatever fuckwittery they believe that I don’t hold to, has no bearing on their atheism. So pah!

          Yet I have not heard of any atheistic foundation if truth that is certain, i.e., might not be imaginary.

          And I doubt you will, because you are too stupid, even after all this time, to realise that atheism deals with one thing, and one thing only.

          Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

          https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

          There is only one thing all atheists have in common, can ya guess what it is yet? Anything else two atheists agree or disagree about, it has bugger all to do with what they believe about the existence of gods.

          You might be imaginary, Amos. How do you know you aren’t?

          Ah, solipsism. I might be imaginary. I don’t need to know that I am not imaginary. For the purposes of me, I’m real enough for my purpose.

          Or solipsism might just be a loada philosophical bullshit navel gazing.

          https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node43.html

          Since I’m interacting with you here…am going with solipsism is bullshit…but that is all irrelevant and your attempt at obfuscation in order to avoid the meat of my reply.

          Please try harder.

        • Markus R

          Gone as far as I can with you, Amos. You dint even know if you are real.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh I know I’m real enough…it is you that can’t tell the difference between what is real and what is imaginary in the world we understand…natural.

          But you just run on along there sonny, since the comment you are failing to address was to show the ignorance of your own position. That is, your silly beliefs are a lot more detrimental to societies than belief in fairies, or Santa Claus, yet equal on evidence for the existence of all three. Hence the reason some atheists have decided to open their gobs to online arseholes and let them know the absurdity of their particular flavour of nonsense and why.

        • Otto

          No, I first rejected it because there were too many problems to believe it is true, after all that I realized Christianity is a predatory religion. It is poison and a cancer on humanity. God is just a character in your play and has no more power than what you give him in your imagination.

        • Markus R

          Ah, so you are a noble warrior against Christianity for the good of your neighbor and mankind? I’m impressed.

        • Otto

          Hey, if my neighbor is selling poison in the guise of candy I would be wrong not to point it out.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Ah, so you are a noble warrior against Christianity for the good of your neighbor and mankind? I’m impressed.”

          Projection, thy name is ‘Markus R’.

          We just want YOUR KIND to leave us GOOD people the fuck *alone*.

        • I do not like paladins. They’re too snooty and prefer druids (as in real, celtic, druids and not those shape-shifting tree-huggers)

          What I just want is YOU (and I’m including here fanatics of other religions) leaving ALONE those who are not interested in your beliefs and to stop both threatening non-believers and attempting to use any power and/or influence to force them into everyone, liking them or not.

        • sandy

          Of course we reject the God of the bible. How do you reconcile all the monstrous and immoral things he does as I pointed out above and I could have gone on. How do you deal with this violence from your God who is suppose to be all loving?

        • Markus R

          You must be reading s different Bible then I have. God is not “all loving.” Love is one of his attributes, as are holiness and justice and wrath. The same God who suffered and died for sinners as Jesus Christ will also send those who do not repent and believe to everlasting punishment.

        • Otto

          Yeah your Mad Blood God of the desert will torture people for not thinking the right thoughts…we know…that is the poison.

        • Markus R

          Nobody will go to hell for not believing. They will justly go to hell for violating the moral laws of God.

        • Otto

          You have just contradicted yourself.

          The same God who suffered and died for sinners as Jesus Christ will also send those who do not repent and believe to everlasting punishment.

          According to you and your religion everyone violates the moral laws of God…only those that think the right thoughts will be exempt…so yeah not believing is the only difference.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Nobody will go to hell for not believing. They will justly go to hell for violating the moral laws of God.”

          Book/chapter/verse on that nonsense, then…

        • Tommy

          Nobody will go to hell for not believing.

          Correct again. Nobody will go to hell for not believing because hell doesn’t and never existed.

        • Read your Bible.

          “We maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” (Romans 3:28).

        • Markus R

          A wonderful truth in light of the fact that we have all sinned and fallen short. All are judged—we will either face God in our own righteousness or the righteousness of Christ. If we do not repent and trust in Christ then we will face a holy judge who will punish us for our sins, as justice demands.

          Bob, we are all in a crashing aircraft. Christ is the parachute God freely offers. You have but to accept it and put it on.

        • Fascinating. But since it’s theology, it’s bullshit until proven otherwise.

          For someone with such a high opinion of his own thoughts, you’ve got a lot to learn about what makes an effective argument.

        • Anri

          Bob, we are all in a crashing aircraft. Christ is the parachute God freely offers. You have but to accept it and put it on.

          To correct your analogy, the pilot’s deliberately flying the plane into the ground, and you have to get down on your knees and worship him to get a parachute. And kill the guy next to you if he’s gay.

          Nice guy, your pilot.

        • Markus R

          There’s the rub—it’s not whether God is real, it’s the thought that Ann is not God that strikes a blow to the heart, for if Ann is not God, she might have to face her sins and give them up.

          “He would blush if anyone saw his sin, but he doesn’t blush for the sin itself…….You are afraid if a mere man is present; aren’t you afraid, then, at the presence of God, Father and Son? But alas, you don’t want to believe, in case you would have to obey” Ambrose

        • Ouch! The “you atheists are actually believers” argument!

          You’re like a Knight Who Says “Ni!” Please stop your devastating argument.

        • Greg G.

          Bring me a shrubbery!

        • sandy

          Your God drowned the entire world, women, children, babies and animals who were innocent of any crime all because he fucked up with his own creation as written in your bible. He regretted his mistake and vowed to never do it again but failed to realize humans would always be, by nature, what he got all pissed about and wanted to drown. Some omniscient God, not. Jesus never died BTW isn’t he up in heaven? Why this threat of everlasting punishment? Why not just live a good life without all this believing bullshit? Explain how this Jesus character had to go through a crucifixion to save me, because a fictional Adam ate from the tree of knowledge because a talking snake told him to do so?

        • Tommy

          God is not “all loving.”

          You’re right again. God is not “all loving”. Non-existent beings can’t “love” at all.

        • Markus R

          What is love, Tommy? If you are the end result of random mutations and evolution then love is nothing more than chemical reactions on your brain.

        • And the Universe (maybe, there’re several other theories) either the result of a quantum fluctuation appearing in empty space or just one among many others born from cosmic inflation.

          That does not change what is love, nor what it means.

        • Tommy

          So what?

        • Greg G.

          nothing more than chemical reactions on your brain

          See what you are when the chemicals stop reacting.

        • Susan

          If you are the end result of random mutations and evolution then love is nothing more than chemical reactions on your brain.

        • ildi
        • You know the process that produces love … so therefore love doesn’t exist?

          (Is that your final answer?)

        • MR

          justice (jŭsˈtĭs)
          n. The quality of being just; fairness.
          n. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
          n. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

          Sending someone to everlasting punishment is neither fair nor equitable. Do you have a beloved friend or family member who is an atheist? Would you send them to everlasting punishment?

        • Keith

          Also, how much fun will heaven be knowing that all your atheist and Mormon friends are suffering for all eternity with no chance of redemption while you are basking in glory. Does it make you feel more special? More chosen? Or are you going to put in a good word for us while in heaven and come out with another redemption plan (3rd or 4th) since the drowning and burning animals and crucifixion didn’t pan out for the all knowing and all loving God.

        • MR

          God’s dirty little secret. While the party is happening in the mansion upstairs, the torture chamber is on down below and the archangel Michael is selling tickets so you, too, can watch your ex-loved ones be skinned alive, over and over and over again…! Just tell ‘im Jesus sent ya.

          Now that’s a party!

          Divine justice, gotta love it.

          One of the key things that demonstrated for me the absurdity of all this is that we all, Christian and non-Christian alike, express horror at what the Nazis did to the Jews, and yet that will pale in comparison to what God is going to do them.

          Common sense and empathy go right out the window, don’t they?

        • Markus R

          By whose standard, the standards of man or God? If Hitler would appear before you fur judgement, what would be a fair sentence? We have sinned against the highest authority in the cosmos.

          Even our own system of justice recognizes the severity of crimes against authority. Let’s look at an example…

          Two brothers get into an argument and one punches the other. What is an appropriate punishment?

          Ok, now one of those brothers punches his mother? Different punishment? You bet.

          Ok, now the brother goees out and punches a cop. Different punishment? You bet.

          Punches the judge? How about punches the President? Yup. Increased punishment.

          Ok. Punches the eternal, holy and good God that gave him life and sustains his every breath. There is literally and justly hell to pay.

          In the end it’s not up to us to judge God. He judges us.

        • Greg G.

          Hitler was a Christian. What punishment he deserves (IMO) and what punishment he would get under Christian theology are not within shouting distance of each other.

          Anne Frank was not a Christian. Her punishment under Christian theology is eternal damnation.

          As a judge, God sucks.

        • MR

          You claimed that one of God’s attributes is justice. Everlasting punishment for finite sins is neither fair nor equitable. So, if it’s “some other standard,” whatever that is supposed to mean, then you’re not talking about justice.

          Do you have a beloved friend or family member who is an atheist? Would you send them to everlasting punishment? Why or why not?

        • Sample1

          Even our own system of justice recognizes the severity of crimes against authority.

          Category error.

          Judges in democracies receive their power and authority through the people. Spirits, lunar deities and even minor war gods like Yahweh are typically not dependent on anything for their authority.

          Then again, I don’t know what you mean by “our system of justice.” Perhaps you are a subject in monarchical Saudi Arabia. In that case, it’s closer to god-like authority but still only an analogy and analogies don’t represent comparisons perfectly. So yeah, still in error.

          Mike

        • the standards of man or God?

          God? The same god who invented hell?

          This must be a trick question.

          Punches the eternal, holy and good God that gave him life and sustains his every breath. There is literally and justly hell to pay.

          Punches Superman: who would care?

          God is infinitely thin-skinned if he is infinitely offended by a non-injury.

        • Markus wouldn’t send them to hell, but his god would. I’m not sure how Markus lives with the fact that his god’s morals are so obviously worse than his own.

          Someone else mentioned Stockholm syndrome. Maybe that’s the explanation.

        • I hear you. Any god that would punish finite crimes with everlasting torment is a heartless bastard.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Would you accept such a personality as your ‘god’ as a good neighbor?

          If not, why does your ‘god’ get a pass?

        • sandy

          Markus R, are we talking about the same God who created evil, drowned everything on earth but one family, incinerated cities, killed the first born of everything in Egypt, wants to be called Jealous, loves the smell of burning flesh, needs you to cut the end of your dick off, hates mixed fabrics and shell fish, condones slavery and rape and….hates gays,….that God of the bible who is holy?

        • Greg G.

          When somebody wants to sell you something, do you buy no questions asked? I think it is best to investigate things first. You should take a critical look at the stuff you are pushing. Look closely at what the early epistles say about Jesus and you will find they say nothing that isn’t in the Old Testament. They don’t have any first century information.

          Paul seems to have thought Jesus lived between David’s time and Isaiah’s time. He thinks his knowledge is not inferior to the super-apostles’ knowledge so he knew they didn’t know a first century Jesus either.

          Paul loved to talk about Jesus, though. He uses “Jesus” and/or “Christ” about 300 times in less than 1500 verses but he just never talked about a preacher/teacher from Galilee. Below is everything he tells us.

          Paul about Jesus and His Sources

          Past
          Descended from David > Romans 1:3, Romans 15:12* > 2 Samuel 7:12, Isaiah 11:10*
          Declared Son of God > Romans 1:4 > Psalm 2:7
          Made of woman, > Galatians 4:4 > Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 49:1, Isaiah 49:5
          Made under the law > Galatians 4:4, Galatians 3:10-12* > Deuteronomy 27:26*, Habakkuk 2:4*, Leviticus 18:5*
          Was rich, became poor > 2 Corinthians 8:9 > Zechariah 9:9
          Was meek and gentle > 2 Corinthians 10:1 > Isaiah 53:7
          Did not please himself > Romans 15:3* > Psalm 69:9*
          Became a servant of the circumcised > Romans 15:8 > Isaiah 53:11
          For the Gentiles > Romans 15:9-12* > Psalm 18:49*, 2 Samuel 22:50*, Deuteronomy 32:43*, Psalm 117:1*, Isaiah 11:10*
          Became Wisdom of God > 1 Corinthians 1:30 > Isaiah 11:2

          Was betrayed > 1 Corinthians 11:23 > Psalm 41:9
          Took loaf of bread and wine > 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 > Psalm 41:9, Exodus 24:8, Leviticus 17:11, Isaiah 53:12 (“wine” = “blood of grapes” allusions in Genesis 49:11, Deuteronomy 32:14, Isaiah 49:26, Zechariah 9:15)

          Was crucified > 1 Corinthians 2:2, 2 Corinthians 13:4, Galatians 3:13* > Deuteronomy 21:23*
          Died for sins > 1 Corinthians 15:3, Galatians 2:20 > Isaiah 53:5, Isaiah 53:12
          Was buried > 1 Corinthians 15:4 > Isaiah 53:9
          Was raised > Romans 1:4, Romans 8:34, 1 Corinthians 15:4, 2 Corinthians 4:14, 2 Corinthians 13:4 > Hosea 6:2, Psalm 16:10, Psalm 41:10

          Present
          Sits next to God > Romans 8:34 > Psalm 110:1, Psalm 110:5
          Intercedes > Romans 8:34 > Isaiah 53:12

          Future
          Will come > 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54*, Philippians 3:20-21 > Isaiah 26:19-21, Daniel 7:11, Daniel 7:13; Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 25:8*

          (* indicates that New Testament passage contains a direct quote from the Septuagint.)

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE!!

          (that is all….)

        • Tommy

          Nope.

        • epicurus

          Mormons will tell you the same thing when you raise problems with the BOM. And Muslims with the Koran.

        • Yeah? Share this evidence with us (and make it Christianity-specific, not something vague that could apply to any god).

        • Pofarmer
        • Greg G.

          I don’t think Justin Martyr was correct about the barbecue. I think that is just an analogous feature noticed a century later. I think the idea of crucifixion is from Paul in Galatians 3:6-14. I think the Jerusalem Christians denied that Jesus was crucified.

          1 Corinthians 1:23
          23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

          Galatians 6:12
          12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that try to compel you to be circumcised — only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

          Throughout Galatians, Paul railed against the circumcision faction, which he identifies James as a leader of and Cephas kowtowing to.

        • Pofarmer

          I was more thinking along the lines that The Visualizations of the crucified lamb would have been well known to those writing The New Testament. Who knows what sorts of symbolism or ceremonies surrounded the act of hanging the lambs. It was after all a religious ceremony and sacrifice.

        • Greg G.

          I think idea of crucifixion was established by Paul and Mark. The crucifixion isn’t discussed much in the other epistles. It is more of a big deal in the gospels which came later.

        • So you put errors into the “no biggie” file so you can preserve your conclusion. I don’t think that’s an objective search for the truth.

        • Markus R

          Of course if you had any knowledge of ancient literature you would be astounded by the reliability of what exists. But that’s not the problem—you would reject the God of Bible no matter how reliable the Bible is. Am I correct?

        • Greg G.

          There are more inconsistencies in the New Testament manuscripts that we have than there are words in the New Testament.

        • Markus R

          I like Bible studies but I restrict them to only with fellow believers. Your problem with the Bible is not the inconsistancies.

        • rogero

          Your problem with bible studies therefore is confirmation bias.

        • Markus R

          Not at all. I have yet to find an atheist who has any basis upon which to make truth claims.

        • Otto

          That is because your apologetic argument is lazy.

        • Markus R

          Lazy? Maybe. I just don’t waste my time giving evidences that out a man in the position of the judge of God. The Bible makes it clear that you know if God’s existence. Indeed it’s why you strive so vigorously to disprove him, rather than repent of your sins against God.

        • Otto

          You judge God every day….and you are lazy doing so.

          >>>”The Bible makes it clear that you know if God’s existence.”

          Haha…don’t believe everything you read. Most people learned that by the time they are 10 years old. Not you though…nope.

        • Max Doubt

          “The Bible makes it clear that you know if God’s existence.”

          That’s some pretty damning evidence that your bible is not a reliable source of correct information.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          *Demonstrate* your ‘god’ before you demand any respect for it.

          Right now, it’s fiction for lack of evidence.

        • Greg G.

          The Bible makes it clear that you know if God’s existence.

          The Bible makes claims but it doesn’t provide evidence that would make the claims clear.

          The claim 2 + 2 = 5 clearly says that the sum of two and two is five but it doesn’t make that clear.

        • Markus R

          Who says 2+2 can’t equal 5?

        • Greg G.

          Who says 2+2 can’t equal 5?

          Of course it can. It just requires equivocation of the meanings of the symbols. It is true for larger values of 2 or a smaller value of 5.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Reality and experiment.

          Try them sometime…

        • But you do have a basis on which to make truth claims? Tell us more.

        • ildi

          Reminded me of this video I saw at Friendly Atheist:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgOMiyjitjA

        • Greg G.

          No, I have no problem with the inconsistencies. I find it amazing that we have still have most of the writings the NT authors used to create their fictions and fantasies.

          I think Mark is a fantastic writer. He melds Old Testament and Apocrypha into the popular and classic Greek literature.

          The Feeding of the Five Thousand mixes Elisha’s Feeding of the Hundred from 2 Kings 4:42-44 with Telemauchus’ travels in The Odyssey. When Telemauchus began to search for his father, he visited some kings who might give insight where to look. He travel on foot to one where there was a feast and he sailed to the other, and so does Jesus. One of the feast had nine ranks of 500 so Mark rounded up for one meal and down for the other.

          Mark writes in chiastic construction which creates “sandwiches”. When Jesus is on trial, Peter is outside. When Jesus is being slapped around and ordered to “Prophesy!” Peter is fulfilling his earlier prophecy.

          The Gospel of Mark is really fascinating when you read it as fiction and to recognize the literature of the day. Believing it is like believing the Three Bears.

        • Markus R

          Same problem the scribes and Pharisees has with Jesus’ parables. Not all are meant to understand.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So your ‘god’, if it exists outside of a viral meme, is an asshole who’s trying to send people to ‘hell’ for not being gullible?

        • Markus R

          Nobody gives to hell for not believing. They go to hell for breaking God’s moral laws. The 10 Commandments. How do you stack up? Ever told a lie? Ever stolen anything? Ever used God’s name in vain? Ever looked at a woman with lust? And those are just 4 of the 10.

          God has written these laws upon the human conscience. You know in your heart they are wrong. You don’t need the Bible to know that.

        • Otto

          >>>”Nobody gives to hell for not believing.”

          You are lying and you deserve hell for lying…except your believe the right thoughts so you will be ok.

        • Markus R

          Otto, one day you will stand in front of Jesus Christ. You will be judged according to your righteousness or his righteousness. If you choose to stand in your own righteousness, please know that every thought and action in your life is known to him. Every lie. Every thing you ever stole. Every time you had sex outside of marriage or even looked at a woman in lust, and every time you used God’s name in vain, etc. It is for those sins that you will be sent into eternal and everlasting punishment.

          That’s not my message—it’s the word of God. And that same word tells us that all who repent and trust in Christ will be forgiven and receive eternal life. Please consider this.

        • Otto

          Your religion is a joke, I take it no more seriously than Scientology. You are part of a cult and you spread poison and lies.

          I also find it interesting that after I show that you contradicted yourself and your religion you completely ignored it. Go sell your snake oil somewhere else Mr. Con Man.

        • Or maybe you will stand in front of Zeus, Inanna, Shiva, Allah, Mystra, Yahweh (Judaism version, not Christian one), Ereshkigal, Cthulhu, or any of the many other deities, fictional or not, who are known all over the world and you’ll be judged using their laws, not those you thought to be correct. Or it turns out you’re right, Jesus is there, but are sent to Hell instead despite all your efforts to behave according to his laws.

          Remember that you’re quite unlikely to get a claims sheet in the afterlife if things turn out to be VERY different to what you thought. Please consider that.

        • Max Doubt

          “Every lie. Every thing you ever stole. Every time you had sex outside of marriage or even looked at a woman in lust, and every time you used God’s name in vain, etc. It is for those sins that you will be sent into eternal and everlasting punishment.”

          You have a wild and hateful imagination. If you ever find yourself actually believing all that nonsense affects other people and their real lives, please get some mental health help. That’d make you one seriously dangerous motherfucker.

        • MR

          Don’t worry, Otto, none of that remotely warrants eternal damnation. A just God wouldn’t do such a thing.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re really good at the argument by assertion and attestation but really weak at supporting your arguments with evidence. Why don’t you try to convince us with facts and logic instead of trying to bullshit us.

        • one day you will stand in front of Jesus Christ.

          Yeah? Prove it.

        • Markus R

          Not for me to prove. All I can do I hope that you will consider it.

        • And you wonder why your arguments fail? It’s because you make a ludicrous claim and then expect that we’ll be convinced. What’s supposed to convince us? Just by magic?

          Ain’t working.

        • Susan

          Not for me to prove.

          Then, why are you here?

          You are talking to an awful lot of ex-christians who have heard this nonsense and eventually realized there is no reason whatsoever to believe it.

          You are either too indoctrinated to think or such an unwilling thinker that indoctrination is the most comfortable thing that could ever have happened to you..

          Whichever the case, you’re just an obnoxious troll.

          You assert things relentlessly and can’t support them.

          That should be a problem for you but it isn’t.

          It is a problem for everyone else.

          No one cares.

          Either support what you claim, or leave.

        • Markus R

          Troll? I oringinally resounded precisely in topic (contradictions in the Bible). I’ve been peppered with questions that I have answered.

          As for support, I have answered consistently from my worldview and the Bible (remember it is the topic). In responss I’be been insulted and my beliefs have been ridiculed repeatedly.

          You don’t want support for my assertions, Susan, anymore than anyone else does. You posture yourself as the judge of truth as do others here, but not one has offered a foundation for truth in their worldview other than their subjective opinion.

        • Susan

          You don’t want support for my assertions, Susan, anymore than anyone else does.

          Pretend all you like. It’s reasonable when someone makes a claim that they are willing and able to support it.

          You just make empty claims. If you can support them, do so.

          If you can’t, stop wasting everyone’s time.

        • epeeist

          Otto, one day you will stand in front of Jesus Christ. You will be judged according to your righteousness or his righteousness.

          And as I keep saying, it always comes down to the ad baculum.

        • Markus R

          Indeed, when negative or adverse outcomes are the explicit result of a decision, not mentioning them is insincere and absurd.

        • epeeist

          Indeed, when negative or adverse outcomes are the explicit result of a decision

          Whenever we get a Christian who isn’t doing too well here they almost inevitably resort to Gricean implicature, “Nice place life you got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it.” In other words, the not-so-subtle threat.

        • Markus R

          Were you walking towards a dangerous cliff unaware, would you not wish somebody to yell, “Stop!”

          Is that a threat? Or is a loving warning?

        • Greg G.

          What the shout is depends on whether the cliff is real or a figment of the imagination of the person shouting.

          We have read the same book you have and realize it is mostly fiction. We are trying to make you turn around so you can return to reality.

        • Markus R

          Greg, what is reality? How do you know that you are real?

        • MR

          Then that just makes God even more unlikely.

        • Greg G.
        • epeeist

          Is that a threat?

          No, just a bad analogy.

          A more accurate notice would say, “Step this way and I will burn you in hell forever”.

        • I forgot to add I’m not interested at all in the kind of “eternal life” you have to offer me. Do you think I’ve not readen the Bible and what would imply following the literalist view?

          Forget it. Either you’re basically brainwashed to worship God forever and ever, EVER -long after the times given here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Future_of_the_Earth,_the_Solar_System_and_the_universe had passed- and are tortured for all eternity.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Not all are meant to understand.”

          If one can’t understand, one CAN’T believe.

          If one can’t believe, one will go to ‘hell’, per your just-so-story.

          Your ‘god’ apparently doesn’t want everyone to understand, per your statement.

          Per the story, your ‘god’ created everything and all the rules.

          QED Per the story, your ‘god’ sends people to ‘hell’.

        • ildi

          I guess you missed John 3:16:
          For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him (emphasis mine) shall not perish but have eternal life.

        • Bro, do you even read the Bible?

          Moses smashed the tablets and went to get another set. Read Exodus 34 for the actual Ten Commandments.

        • Markus R

          That is correct. And Moses read from those new tablets in Deuteronomy 5. The 10 Commandments. How are you stacking up by those, Bob. I fail miserably and I need a savior.

        • Did you change the subject deliberately, hoping I wouldn’t notice, or was that just word salad that did so inadvertently?

          Read Exodus 34. The chapter even calls it the “Ten Commandments.”

          Let’s get the correct commandments listed before we evaluate how much of an asshole you are. Don’t worry–we’ll have time for that.

        • Yeah, in Gnosticism. You don’t think that, in the blending of all these ideas, we’ve got some residual Gnosticism in Christianity?

        • The biblical inconsistencies alone sink the Christian claims for me. Am I missing something?

        • Nope.

          But tell me more about this enormous gap in my knowledge of ancient literature. You’re saying that the written record we have of the NT is unprecedented? Yeah, I know. Unimportant–it still sucks.

          But since you’re so knowledgeable, let’s see if you can tell us why.

        • Markus R

          Easy—it tells you (1) there is a God, (2) he’s perfectly good and will not tolerate evil, (3) man is evil and wicked and will give an account for his sins. That’s the bad news. But it doesn’t stop there, thankfully.

        • Greg G.

          (2) he’s perfectly good

          At http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/10/top-20-most-damning-bible-contradictions/#comment-4156446386 , you said:

          God is not “all loving.” Love is one of his attributes

          If your god thingy is perfectly good and love is one of his attributes, then love must be good. To be “perfectly good”, the god thingy would have to be perfectly loving. If the god thingy fails at loving, then it is not perfectly good.

        • Markus R

          Just the opposite. A perfectly good God does not let evil go unpunished. But you know that.

        • Greg G.

          There is nothing more evil than torturing someone for long periods of time, except for doing it to billions of people. Therefore, your concept of God is evil which cannot be described as perfectly good.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re still assuming the consequent.

          DEMONSTRATE it.

        • ildi

          Since your perfectly good God created evil, he’s actually a bit of a shitheel, and not all that perfect – I prefer the Greek pantheon, at least they aren’t into gaslighting.

        • Sample1

          I don’t believe in any gods but I do believe in people. So here we are.

          I am trying to think of a scenario where I would condone creating a place where my spaniel would yelp, catch fire, and tremble forever the next time he jumps into the front seat of my car. Maybe a permanent noxious odor like ammonia to torment his olfactory sense while you’re at it.

          Can you help me? It sounds like you might.

          Mike
          Edit done.

        • Markus R

          God doesn’t punish innocent creatures. We have violated his very character and nature. And that is a very serious act.

        • Greg G.

          According to the story, God made us. Should the potter punish the pot for how it is made?

        • Markus R

          Does the potter not have the right to make some pots for noble purposes and others for ignoble?

        • Greg G.

          A potter can do what he wants with a pot but it is irrational for the potter to blame the pot and to punish it for how it is made. Your rhetorical question does not address the question I asked.

        • Then don’t blame the imperfect pots for being imperfect!

          Why is this hard?

        • MR

          Nicely put, Greg.

          This is one of the things that makes absolutely no sense. None of us asked to be created. God supposedly is omniscient, which means that he created us knowing that he was creating the vast majority of mankind for eternal torment. He dragged people into eternal existence, judges them for a blink of an eye moment in time only to condemn them to eternal torment. Ri-ight.

          Markus throws around attributes of God like love, justice, perfectly good and yet these things are the exact opposite. What kind of upside down world is it where fairness = excess, equity = inequality, where justice = injustice? Eternal torment for finite “sins” is in no way fair and equitable, no matter how you slice it.

          The story simply makes no sense. The emperor has no clothes. I mean, at least come up with something believable, right?

        • Michael Neville

          Apparently we “violated his very character and nature” by merely existing Considering we were made in the image of God that is pretty damning, but not of us. Your god is a sadistic, vindictive asshole if he even thinks about punishing us for eternity.

        • Markus R

          It doesn’t matter what the criminal thinks about the judge. It only matters that the judge is real and has absolute authority. God is real and he has spoken.

        • Greg G.

          It doesn’t matter what the criminal thinks about the judge.

          Aren’t you trying to defend Christianity? That is the only thing that matters, isn’t it? It is all about how gullible the defendant is about the judge.

        • Markus R

          God doesn’t need any one to defend him. My hope is that I might cause one reader to see the light. Hell is hot and eternity is long. I have no desire for you to spend eternity there, Greg.

        • Greg G.

          God doesn’t need any one to defend him.

          Only someone to imagine him. I didn’t say anything about you defending that.

          Aren’t you trying to defend Christianity? You tried use an analogy that just doesn’t work with a religion that is supposed to rely on faith and gullibility.

          Hell is hot and eternity is long.

          You are half right there, eternity is long. Hell is imaginary but it makes a find cuss word.

        • mfm420

          circular logic, idle threats, pascual’s wager, and gawdidit!!!

          wow, the 4 horsemen of stupid fundie ranting, congrats

        • firebubbles310

          The why is their punishments for blasphemy? If he doesn’t need anyone to defend him, why doesn’t he tell his followers to punish someone who says something against him. Kind of thin skinned.

        • I have no desire for you to spend eternity there, Greg.

          You’re like Dorothy with her ruby slippers–you’ve had the solution in your control all along. In this case, just stop believing nonsense, and hell (which you admit is barbaric because you say you don’t want Greg to go there!) will vanish.

          Wouldn’t it be nice of real problems in the world (lack of water or food, for example) could be dismissed so easily?

        • ildi
        • Ignorant Amos

          My hope is that I might cause one reader to see the light.

          What part of the concept that most of us here once believed in all that woo-woo crap you are preaching, until we didn’t. We all realised that the light you preach was very dim indeed, in comparison. It is you that needs to see the light…we’ve all been in that dark hole you are currently in at the moment…none of us are in any hurry back, so if your purpose here is bullshit proselytizing, give it up already, you just don’t know enough to have any effect.

        • Markus R

          Ignorant, could you be wrong about that? You said you indeed believed but now you don’t, which implies that you were wrong before? How do you know you aren’t wrong now? What is your source of absolute truth?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ignorant, could you be wrong about that?

          Of course. And I look forward to the day that one of you lot comes along and can demonstrate I’m wrong, with a convincing argument complete with support. Could you be wrong?

          You said you indeed believed but now you don’t, which implies that you were wrong before?

          Oh I was definitely wrong before, but that’s because I was ignorant on the subject matter and had been indoctrinated as a child with a pile of lies. Of course I was also wrong about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus for the same reason. Do you still believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus? If not, why not?

          How do you know you aren’t wrong now?

          Simple. Evidence…and the lack thereof.

          How do you know you’re not wrong now? There are a lot more god’s than your pet version…even within Christianity. How do you know you are not wrong? What method do you use to verify yuou are not wrong?

          What is your source of absolute truth?

          First define what you mean by “absolute truth”? Then tell me what your source of this thing you define as “absolute truth”?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “…which implies that you were wrong before?”

          Yep…and he’s able to accept that he was wrong at some point.

          THAT is what *learning* is all about.

          You and YOUR KIND refuse to learn and change with the evidence…which means you’re more likely wrong than a person who can accept evidence and reassess in light of it.

        • By the same token El, Asherah, Baal, and other deities of the Semitic pantheon, who can be recognized in the Bible, are real too.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that your imaginary god is real? I should warn you that I’ve be discussing the existence of gods (remember there’s more gods than the sadistic bully you prefer) for over 50 years. I’m familiar with the usual arguments for gods and why they fail.

        • Markus R

          I don’t need to prove the obvious. It is impossible to even reason without God.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t need to prove the obvious.

          He asked for evidence not proof. It’s not obvious without evidence.

          It is impossible to even reason without God.

          Prove it without going circular.

        • Michael Neville

          How does an imaginary, fictitious, non-existent critter have anything to do with reality? You have to show your mythical, make-believe, hypothetical god exists before you can claim any attributes for it. You making fanciful, un-evidenced claims about your god doesn’t mean shit. Show me that your god exists.

          EDIT: I didn’t ask you to “prove” anything, I asked you for evidence.

        • Yeah? Prove it.

          No, that ridiculous claim is not obvious.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          That’s an assertion and assuming the consequent.

          Do better.

        • MR

          Judges don’t have absolute authority. They are expected to rule justly, fairly, equitably. Condemning someone who punches the president in the nose to torture for the rest of their life would not be considered just, fair or equitable. A ruler might have absolute authority, but one who would do such things is not considered good, loving or just. They are considered a tyrant. Infinite punishment for finite sins is not the action of a good, loving and just God; it is the action of a tyrant. The story makes no sense. The pieces of the story have to make sense if you want people to believe it.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          When the ‘judge’ is ALSO the ‘creator’…then the only blame to be cast is ON the ‘judge/creator’, not on what was produced.

          According to YOUR KIND’s story, anyway.

        • Max Doubt

          “God is real and he has spoken.”

          Your god is absolutely powerless outside your own imagination. Out here in the real world, in any comparison between your god and me – other than doing that impersonation of something that doesn’t exist at all – I reign supreme!

        • MR

          I mean, if a mere human can “violate” anything regarding God, that makes him look awfully weak and silly. Is God so sensitive? So petty? The story doesn’t make any sense. He’s gotta give me something more believable than that!

        • Michael Neville

          The Christian god is an insecure narcissist. According to the propaganda he needs to be continually told how great he is and otherwise have his ego stroked or else he pouts and goes into smiting mode.

        • ildi

          Sounds like 45… no wonder evangelicals love him so!

        • Jay Has

          But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

          Matthew 5:28

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Non sequitur.

          Do you actually have a point with that comment?

        • Jay Has

          The sarcasm must not have been evident. I was poking fun at the Bible’s thought-crime agenda.

        • Greg G.

          I got it. I should patent my sarcasm meter.

        • Michael Neville

          Am I supposed to be impressed with accusations of thought crimes? Try again, this time using logic and evidence instead of anti-humanist propaganda.

        • Jay Has

          The sarcasm must not have been evident. I was poking fun at the Bible’s thoughtcrime agenda.

        • Michael Neville

          No, the sarcasm was not evident. Just a plain Biblical quote without other commentary is a common response Christians use when faced with evidence that their god is an asshole.

        • Jay Has

          I figured my other comments were a dead give away on where I stood.

        • Sample1

          Blood sacrifice is an obsolete technology. I’ve no use for God or gods so of course I don’t believe any divine character or nature has been violated. Remember phone books and VCRs? Obsolete too! where I’m from.

          You make a distinction between punishing and harming. I know this because natural catastrophes (the ones that insurance policies call acts of god) harm countless creatures. But I don’t want to talk about that with you.

          You’ve essentially answered my suspicions. Hurting my spaniel forever, hearing him cry and panic, for jumping into the front seat isn’t something you’d do.

          Thanks responding. I’m satisfied.

          Mike

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Explain away feline leukemia, then.

        • Max Doubt

          “We have violated his very character and nature.”

          I haven’t. I don’t sin. I’m a far better person than that.

        • Keith

          Why can’t God just forgive us? Like us humans do all the time. Why the sacrifice needed? Why the blood shed? And oh what a sacrifice if you get to come back to life in less than 48 hours. Markus, if you wrong me I will just forgive you, I won’t give you my son to beat up and torture to make things right.

        • Markus R

          That’s a fair question, Keith. Why don’t all human judges forgive every accused person that comes before them? Just forgive them all? Would that be justice?

        • Greg G.

          People have limited resources and limited life spans but they can get over issues and forgive a lot better than your god thingy in many cases.

        • Markus R

          So what would you do with Hitler? Forgive him?

        • Greg G.

          Hitler is dead. Hitler was a Christian when he lived. What would Jesus do?

          The God of the Bible story drowned the world? Hitler’s atrocities are comparatively minor. Would you forgive him?

          The God of the Bible could heal every case of bone cancer in babies but doesn’t. Would you forgive him?

        • Making him and others like Stalin pay for the countless deaths and suffering from the POV of each victim and preventing them of going insane. Once ended, if they beg pardon pardoning them in return.

          An eternity of torment is excessive even for that.

        • Susan

          what would you do with Hitler? Forgive him?

          What would you do with Anne Frank? Burn her for eternity?

          You’re threatening us and Anne Frank with the same fate as Hitler

          And you call that justice.

          (Also… you asked what to do with Hitler. Here’s what I would have done if I had the power. I would have stopped him. Punishing him after the fact does nothing for the victims. Stopping him would have.)

          =====

          Edit 3 minutes later:

          I wouldn’t torture Hitler for eternity.

          Torturing beings for eternity is infinitely more evil than anything Hitler was capable of.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Executing Hitler for his atrocities against humanity would’ve been eternal punishment enough without that recurring bullshit in imaginary Hell that fuckwit holy rollers get a boner for when thinking about it.

        • Any atheist would invent a hell far more just than what your asshole of a god created. That atheists are more moral and just than your god should make you rethink this dude you’re worshiping.

          You know, you can just stop, right? It’s not like you’re in prison. Ex-Christians are happier now that they don’t have to keep apologizing for their god.

        • Markus R

          I don’t have to apologize fir God, Bob. I was an atheist once. Been there and got the T-Shirt. I don’t put much stock in happiness. It comes and goes with circumstances. Since you have read the Bible you surely realize that Christ doesn’t promise temporal happiness. Indeed, Christians can expect to suffer in this life. What God does promise is peace with God and eternal life.

        • I don’t have to apologize fir God, Bob.

          Then you’ve missed job #1 and don’t even realize it. The OT makes clear that God is an asshole. You must clear away that obstacle first.

          I was an atheist once.

          Not like me.

          Since you have read the Bible you surely realize that Christ doesn’t promise temporal happiness. Indeed, Christians can expect to suffer in this life.

          Talking to you is like shooting fish in a barrel. Don’t you realize that your Bible says just about everything?

          “No harm overtakes the righteous, but the wicked have their fill of trouble” (Proverbs 12:21).

          “If you make the Most High your dwelling—even the LORD, who is my refuge—then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent.” (Psalm 91:5–10)

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          If you’re not apologizing for the asshole bully this ‘god’ you natter on is, ACCORDING TO HIS OWN BOOK, then you’ve got bigger problems than a lack of evidence to convince others.

        • Markus R

          Hairy, you seem to have no problem making s moral judgement about God. Where do you get moral truth from?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I get my morality from societies that have *survived* and adapted, evolving to better match the environment.

          Societies with bad ethics die, and societies with medium-bad ethics evolve to enable greater percentages of their members to reach each person’s highest potential for performance and happiness. Any less is abhorrent to any person with compassion & an understanding of informed and enthusiastic consent.

          No supernatural twaddle-waffle necessary, nor desirable.

        • I get mine from my moral programming. Thanks, evolution.

          How about you?

        • Otto

          No, Justice would be telling the perpetrator that the judge’s son was tortured and killed in his place, and then if the perpetrator believed that story the Judge would give him a mansion and all the money he could spend to live out his days. /s

        • Markus R

          Jesus Christ willingly gave himself as a sacrifice. He is God, just as is the Father and the Holy Spirit. In the cross of Christ we see how serious are sines are to a holy God, his love and mercy, and his justice. Amazing.

        • Otto

          So rather than addressing the point I was obviously making you just spit out your religious creed like a doll with a pull string. Amazing.

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          Chatty Cathylic?

        • Greg G.

          Jesus could have just as easily given himself as a sacrifice without requiring belief in him. What a failure! Why would a god thingy put requirements on forgiveness that only gullible people would accept?

        • Let’s see: God creates a couple as perfect as naive and puts them in a garden that has in the middle of it a tree whose only protection is Him telling them not to eat, even by logic in an eternity they’d sooner or later eat from it.

          He also lets the Serpent infiltrate into the Garden and the punishment for eating the damned fruit falls into Adam and Eve when God has a lot of responsability for the mess.

          Fast forward. God has to sacrifice his son to fix a mess caused by Him and that could have been resolved by other means. And this without considering omni*** and the issues brought by the Trinity.

        • Markus R

          Not a bad summary of some of the details, Alec. But it’s off as to the theme. God does all this to glorify himself through the redemption of a fallen creation.

          Yup, in the end we are lowly creatures of rebellion who deserve to be squashed like bugs, but God displays his goodness by suffering himself for those that he chose in the very beginning to save.

          He’s God. We are fragile, fallen creatures that live 80 years or so. The average human in history has had a miserable existence. And if that aren’t bad enough we delight in harming or using each other.

          He’s God. The bad news is that he is good. Very good. So good that he will not tolerate evil.

          We know of God. All of us. Even if we deny it his laws are written into our conscience. We knowingly break those laws. So we are responsible.

          Our prominent sin is to reject the God that is and create one in our own image. We are so arrogant as to think that a mortal being has a right to determine right from wrong (remember that tree we weren’t supposed to eat from?).

        • ildi

          God does all this to glorify himself through the redemption of a fallen creation.

          What an egotistic creep

        • Greg G.

          God does all this to glorify himself through the redemption of a fallen creation.

          If God is so powerful, why can’t he forgive without doing all that?

          Is he trying to impress some goddess who doesn’t know he exists?

        • firebubbles310

          Might be trying to get his wife back. Lol

        • Pofarmer

          His theology is so appealing.

        • Joe

          We are so arrogant as to think that a mortal being has a right to determine right from wrong

          Who better to make that decision?

          He’s God. The bad news is that he is good. Very good. So good that he will not tolerate evil.

          Not tolerate? He seems to tolerate it pretty well, even if he dislikes it.

        • “God is good,” you tell us, even though the OT is full of barbarism that Hitler could only dream of.

          You’re so far in that you can’t see how you’re apologizing for your abuser. It’s battered-wife syndrome.

        • Pofarmer

          If God is so powerful, we wouldn’t be fallen. He could have just created is in perfect heaven.

        • Markus R

          Why would that be so? It’s not reasonable to think that the mind of the eternal and almighty God is the same as ours.

        • Greg G.

          If you are going to use words like “good” to describe your god, then it would have to fit the definition of our word “good”. A being that is very powerful yet blames its creation for the outcome can be described by “dickhead”.

          But “good” is an obsequious lie.

        • Markus R

          Greg, from what source of truth do you derive a definition of “good”? Are you your own moral authority?

        • Greg G.

          I told you more than once that I cannot solve the solipsism problem and neither can you. I can only react to the reality that is presented to me and work out what hurts and what feels good in that perceived reality. Things I and the people presented to me in this reality don’t like are bad. Things we like are good. Those are descriptive words in the language I know that is used in this perceived reality.

          Any concept of an entity that will torture any sentient being for eternity cannot be described as “good”. That is pathologically sadistic. A person who helps old ladies cross the street but tortures children to death in his basement for fun is not a good person despite outward appearances.

        • Markus R

          So your understanding of reality is limited to your senses. Yet senses are not reliable.

          You seem to have no difficulty assessing what is good and evil. But based upon what source of truth? In your worldview we are just a cosmic accident.

          So if I understand what you are saying, your feelings determine your morality? What if I feel differently? Who is right and who is wrong?

        • Greg G.

          So your understanding of reality is limited to your senses. Yet senses are not reliable.

          My senses and others senses which can apparently be enhanced by technology. Senses honed by evolution would be reliable enough. If they were totally unreliable, they would not have been beneficial and would be selected against as a waste of energy.

          So if I understand what you are saying, your feelings determine your morality?

          My feelings and my intellect from what I have learned determine my morality.

          What if I feel differently? Who is right and who is wrong?

          I am right according to my morality and you are right according to your morality. If it is something that we both feel is worth fighting over, we would have to fight. If not, we respect one another and move on. There is no absolute or objective morality.

          If there was an objective morality, you could just show how you got the knowledge. If you say you got it by pretending you know what an imaginary thingy says is objective morality, you will be laughed at.

          Picking things out of your imagination about things you cannot perceive by your senses is far less reliable than understanding things through your senses.

        • MR

          If our senses are such a poor predictor of reality I propose a test. We’ll put a blindfold and earmuffs on you. We stand at the edge of a busy highway and on the count of three we each do our best to cross the road. I can use my powers of observation and can walk down to the corner and hit crosswalk button which may or may not be imaginary and wait for the possibly imaginary lights to change and stop the potentially imaginary cars before I head across. And you can use your prayers and trust in a potentially real God to guide you safely to the other side. Ready? 3…, 2…, 1….

        • Jay Has

          Do not put the Lord, God to the test…..lol

        • MR

          And we all know why, don’t we. 😀

        • Jay Has

          Yes, it is quite painfully obvious!

        • MR

          That’s the way real life works, isn’t it? We talk about God guiding our lives and protecting us and what not (speaking as an ex-Christian), but we live our lives as if he doesn’t. We take the necessary precautions, we hedge our bets, we go to the doctor when we’re sick…, oh, we might ask for prayers at church, too, but for results we go to the doctor. We’re quick to call any windfall a gift from God, or maybe a miracle! even when the same thing happens to non-Christian people all the time. We carefully craft an illusion of God the surrounds us and comforts us, but when it comes right down to it, we know.

        • Jay Has

          I totally hear ya, but oh, there are some crazy ones who don’t give their kids vaccines or starve them, or try exorcisms. THOSE are the ones I truly worry about!

        • ildi

          Continuing with the WfO theme…
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivRKfwmgrHY

        • MR

          So if I understand what you are saying, your feelings determine your morality? What if I feel differently? Who is right and who is wrong?

          That’s pretty much how the world works last I checked. People often disagree on what is right or wrong. Even self-proclaimed Christians all claiming the same source have differing opinions on right and wrong. We decide who is wrong or right through things like social influence, debate, rules and laws. Not everyone always agrees. That’s the way the world has always been.

        • Greg G.

          We decide who is wrong or right through things like social influence, debate, rules and laws. Not everyone always agrees. That’s the way the world has always been.

          And fight, too… sometimes.

        • Asking questions so no one sees that the glaring question remains yours to answer? Yeah, you totally pulled off that rhetorical trick.

          I’m kidding, of course. Your undefended claim of objective morality is sitting there like a stinky turd. You going to take care of it?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Yet senses are not reliable.”

          Upon what do you base this statement?
          – Your ‘bible’, which you claim to be inerrant?
          – Science, which, in determining that sense data may be unreliable, also notes that there is NO evidence of this ‘god’ you assert, to date? (Note: scientific observations also indicate it’s vanishingly unlikely that this ‘god’ of yours exists, statistically)

          You’re not allowed to just pick the one that’s convenient.

        • Keith

          Markus and Greg, If God can’t correct himself (e.g. Exodus 21 where it’s ok to own a human), then that means either there is no good god or no god at all. Don’t forget Jesus endorses owning slaves when he says “Slaves obey your Masters” instead he could have said “Masters free all your slaves, immediately” If he did so, there wouldn’t have been our Civil War.

        • Markus R

          -You appear to lack an understanding of the economies and social structure of the ancient world

          – there were many forms of slavery and serventhood included in the ancient biblical words for slave/Servant

          -The Bible never permits man stealing as occurred in the chattel slavery of the US. Man stealing was punishable by death.

        • Greg G.

          You do not understand biblical slavery.

          The Bible makes a clear distinction between slave bought with money, indentured servants, and hired hands.

          Genesis 17:12-13 (NRSV)
          12 Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. 13 Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.

          Exodus 12:44-45 (NRSV)
          44 but any slave who has been purchased may eat of it after he has been circumcised; 45 no bound or hired servant may eat of it.

          Israelite indentured servants were not to be treated harshly but those bought with money could be.

          Leviticus 25:44-46
          44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

          But an indentured servant could be tricked into becoming a permanent slave using family values.

          Exodus 21:2-6
          2 When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave declares, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person,” 6 then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

          Slaves could be beaten. There are provisions against knocking a tooth or an eye out so it wasn’t smart to beat them in the head. But if you beat them to death and they suffer for a day before dying, and the next day began at sunset, it was just the master’s loss.

          Exodus 21:20-21
          20 When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.

          A Roman pagan writer who thinks of slaves as friends who should be treated well.

          “‘They are slaves,’ people declare. NO, rather they are men.
          ‘Slaves! NO, comrades.
          ‘Slaves! NO, they are unpretentious friends.
          ‘Slaves! NO, they are our fellow-slaves, if one reflects that Fortune has equal rights over slaves and free men alike. That is why I smile at those who think it degrading for a man to dine with his slave.

          But why should they think it degrading? It is only purse-proud etiquette… All night long they must stand about hungry and dumb… They are not enemies when we acquire them; we make them enemies… This is the kernel of my advice: Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters.

          ‘He is a slave.’ His soul, however, may be that of a free man.”
              — Seneca the Younger (4 BC – 65 AD), Epistulae Morales, 47.

          Jesus doesn’t think slaves should even be thanked for their service.

          7 “Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here at once and take your place at the table’? 8 Would you not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink’? 9 Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? 10 So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!’” –Jesus, Luke 17:7-10

        • Otto

          The Bible permits owning people as property…nuff said.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ffs…not this lying fuckwittery…AGAIN.

          The bible has YawehJesus ordering the enslavement of people…including virgins as sex slaves, raped.

        • Aren’t you and your childish comments adorable? No, American slavery and biblical slavery were pretty much identical.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/04/yes-biblical-slavery-was-the-same-as-american-slavery-2/

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          from RationalWiki’s article on slavery in the bible:

          Hebrews were not allowed to abduct fellow Hebrews and sell them.

          Exodus 21:16 (NASB): 16He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

          Given that the Hebrews were instructed in Leviticus 25:44 to obtain their slaves from the people around them, it is evident that this injunction to not abduct people referred to Hebrews and not non-Hebrews. Obtaining and selling non-Hebrews was evidently not a problem. Deuteronomy 24:7 specifies that only the abduction of Hebrews to enslave them is a crime.

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible#Non-Hebrew_slaves

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Markus R, it’s like jazz.

          “If you have to *ask*, you’ll NEVER understand…”

        • Jay Has

          You can’t on one hand say that God’s “mind” is different from ours and incomprehensible, then on the other hand assign attributes to him (such as goodness) and pretend you can even begin to describe “his” omniscience. It’s oxymoronic.

        • Markus R

          Jay, thank you for making my point to Pofarmer.

        • Jay Has

          Ha, I rather made Pofarmer’s point to you, for it is religions who attempt to conceptualize “God” which theoretically would be impossible, if such a being or concept exists in the first place. It’s one thing to attempt to “prove” God (which can’t be done), it’s quite another, much broader leap to then proclaim that “he” revealed himself to a few peasants in ancient Israel, some 200,000 years into the existence of the species as we know it. And with that revelation, became stories and writings, ultimately culminating into a flawed contradictory-filled book, claiming authority over the masses and promising the defectors an eternity of flame-filled existence? Sorry, but some of us completed 2nd grade and on the way learned that the fraudulent, gift-giving St. Nicholas was really just Mom and Dad.

        • Pofarmer

          If something is eternal and almighty, it could create whatever it wanted. There’s simply no reason to create this Earth to test us when he just could have created us perfect in Heaven from the start. The whole thing is stupid.

        • Markus R

          You assuming God is limited to man’s reasoning. Man is fallen and sinful. The last thing we want is to be held acciuntabke for our sins. God is holy and perfect in all his ways. As such, he glorified himself. God has chosen to glorify himself by the redemption of fallen man.

          It’s not about us. It’s about God. Yeah, that smarts a bit. Go outside tonight and gaze at the billions of stars and consider what is man. Yet we dare to stand and shake our fist in God’s face and judge him by our flawed standards.

        • Pofarmer

          Oh fuckin’ get over yourself already. You’re the one who is “limiting” God. Your god is supposed to be all powerful, and all perfect, and all loving. So, why would that god need to be glorified? He’s perfect remember? So, saying that he needs to be glorified simply implies he’s not perfect after all. It’s all just a contradictory mess. Yes, I go out and stare at the stars quite regularly. It’s amazing. My human brain can barely comprehend it all. We’re a speck, on a small blue dot in a Universe that may or may not be infinite but who’s immensity is nearly impossible for us to comprehend. So what? Get a grip.

        • Markus R

          Hang in there, Pofarmer for you are getting warmer. The Bible says that God spoke this universe into existence. Think of that for a moment—God is a being that powerful and amazing. Indeed, reality consists only of God and his creation.

          Before creation existed, only God existed. Outside of time. It’s hard to even wrap our minds around that. He is fully and completely satisfied in himself. He needs nothing else, including our worship.

          For a moment, consider beauty—absolute and perfect beauty. Or any other transcendental quality such as goodness or virtue. Such things are praiseworthy. That is, they are in and if themselves worthy of praise. God is that.

          Now here is what should truly blow our minds—Hid was pleased to create man in his own likeness—having a portion of his qualities. That makes mankind if incredible worth and we should rightly praise him.

        • Susan

          The Bible says that God spoke this universe into existence.

          We know what it says. It’s a story written by humans. It’s not real.

          Stop proselytizing. If you can’t support your claims, go away.

        • Ignorant Amos

          More bullshit lies.

        • So you’re throwing in the towel on making actual argument? Looks like you’ve moved on to evidence-free sermonizing.

          It’s all mental masturbation without evidence, Chester.

        • And you’re so clueless that cannot fathom that what you say (no time means he can’t perceive time flowing. Fail) means that it, not to mention an entity able to create something as arcane and ununderstarable as quantum mechanics plus whatever is hiding behind them (quantum gravity theories) plus an Universe as big as this one, maybe even infinite, would be an entity far beyond our understanding and that would certainly not behave as the typical deity or three thousand years ago, nor would take its sight on an insignificant people of cattle herders inhabiting a small part of an small planet… blah, blah. Of course his book instead of being a work that would transmit our insignificance and at least scraps of that knowledge has all the signs of being an human creation of a time when very little was known of the Universe, with all that entails.

          As with so many religious people with seemingly little or not scientific knowledge, you cannot grasp the real significance of all the atributes you give to him.

          You really need to try much harder.

        • Greg G.

          For a moment, consider beauty—absolute and perfect beauty.

          Where is absolute beauty? I can admire a sunset for its beauty. Knowing how the refractions, reflections, and shadows work makes it all the more interesting. But if I was going to credit an omnipotent being with it, I would be disappointed by the grandest sunset. Is that the best omnipotence can manage? Just think what God could do if he had enough money that he didn’t need beggars behind pulpits.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Been done already…what’s your point?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jli3ruqWYlc

        • Greg G.

          You assuming God is limited to man’s reasoning.

          No, he isn’t. He is assuming that God is at least as good as man’s reasoning.

          Man is fallen and sinful.

          That would be the creator’s fault.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOU are making assertions without bothering to ground them in evidence.

          Why should I believe anything you present?

        • Ignorant Amos

          And you are assuming God…not just any God, but a specific God…one that you are trying to support with nonsense no one here thinks is rational. You are preaching a loada unsupported ballix. Give it up already, we are laughing at you at this point.

        • More theology–I love it!

          It’s all very convincing. I’m ready to sign up.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Per YOUR story, your ‘god’ did just that: created ‘perfect’ beings in ‘heaven’…and some STILL rebelled.

          And if we rebel, being made in ‘god’s image, per you, doesn’t that make your ‘god’ a rebel?

        • Not a bad summary of some of the details, Alec. But it’s off as to the
          theme. God does all this to glorify himself through the redemption of a
          fallen creation instead of asking himself what’s wrong and having attempted to fix it, since like all those Bronze Age gods is one who just wants worship

          Yup, in the end we are lowly creatures of rebellion who deserve to be
          squashed like bugs, but God displays his goodness by suffering himself
          for those that he chose in the very beginning to save instead of looking for better ways to resolve the mess he created in the first time

          He’s God an entity who if was able to create something as arcane as quantum mechanics and what lies beyond, not to mention an Universe that could even be infinite, would be something far beyond our comprehension and would not waste time with insignificant entities like us, much less as a Bronze Age deity. We are fragile, fallen creatures that live 80 years or so. The
          average human in history has had a miserable existence until scientific advancements has improved it. And if that
          aren’t bad enough we delight in harming or using each other.

          He’s God. The bad news is that he is good a sadistic Bronze Age deity. Very good sadistic Bronze Age deity. So good sadistic that he will not tolerate evil and will punish His creations for all eternity and destroy the world ignoring what he said at first instead of fixing what He caused.

          We know of God. All of us Why billions of people in the past millennia, even before the world was created according to YECs, have then lived and died worshipping countless other deities and/or following different philosophies is anyone’s guess then. Even if we deny it his laws are written into
          our conscience. We knowingly break those laws. So we are responsible But God being the sociopath who is cannot improve His PR, nor fix the way He works.

          Our prominent sin is to reject the God that is and create one in our own
          image like the Judeo-Christian God, who we think that is. We are so arrogant as to think that a mortal being has a right
          to determine right from wrong (remember that tree we weren’t supposed to
          eat from?), also to think Bronze Age thinking can be applied to modern societies in the name of a deity whose existence is quite questionable.

          FTFY. Maybe if you stopped parroting the same BS and empty threats again and again and thought why some of us became skeptic you’d understand better.

          Or better, ask Him to bring an update, better, book and not that compendium of Bronze Age leyends and historied badly plagiarized from Judaism, where the original sin does not exist, and that does not make sense from your view

        • Ernest Crunkleton

          ” Even if we deny it his laws are written into our conscience.”

          Can you demonstrate this?

          Seems like you are projecting your beliefs onto everyone else.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re still assuming the consequent.

          Without evidence this ‘god’ of yours exists as anything other than a harmful meme, you’re taking a story as true without proper skepticism.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’re lying.

        • Pofarmer

          Oh his god he’s stupid. At this point he’s just martyrbating

        • Joe

          No, he’s a person in a story. We don’t know how much, if any of it, is true.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “That one thing that happened one time…”

          NOT!

          Uncool story, brah….

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          Yup. God is certainly serious about sines.

          https://media.giphy.com/media/fzRG2T0jDujcI/giphy.gif

        • With a sacrifice that pathetic, the sins he was covering can’t have been all that bad.

          The guy dies and pops back to life in a day and a half? Big deal. You can have either a miracle (resurrection) or a sacrifice (being dead). Christian hilariously think that they can have both.

          Nope. You’ve gotta pick.

          (EDITED – typo)

        • Markus R

          Bob, you don’t want salvation because you believe you are a good person. Yet your conscience tells you otherwise. For that reason you have to suppress the truth (Romans 1).

          Well I’ve given you the truth. Have a good night.

        • I wonder–are you really so stupid that you think that “Cuz my religion sez so, that’s why!” is an argument or just so gullible that you think that your delusion would work for someone else?

          I don’t believe things for emotional reasons. You’ve got to actually give me an argument. Quoting a holy book that I think is bullshit is not an argument.

        • Markus R

          Bob, if I could prove to your satisfaction that the God of the Bible existed, would you worship him?

          No, I don’t think you would. You’ve wasted no pejorative in attacking The God of the Bible. You hate him because you love your sin. It’s not about evidence.

        • Yup, it’s about evidence. If you proved to my satisfaction that God exists, I’d believe, and I’d be following the evidence.

          Why would I worship that shithead? You’ve read the OT, haven’t you? If you did all that, you’d be immoral. God is no different.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Based on the character of your supposed ‘god’, as described in your book, NO, I wouldn’t worship any such bully.

          I’d devote my everything to defeating it, as it’s terrible and destructive.

        • What salvation? I’m tired of asking for evidence, because I know all you have is dogma.

        • Jay Has

          Bob, you’ve been given “Truth” what need do you have for evidence? 😉 /sarc

        • I’ll also pray Mielikki, Goddess of the forest, for you then.

        • Michael Neville

          If someone thinks they’re a good person then they think they’re a good person because their conscience tells them they’re a good person. You’re not very good at logic.

        • Markus R

          Maybe we can turn to Ambrose for help:
          “He would blush if anyone saw his sin, but he doesn’t blush for the sin itself…….You are afraid if a mere man is present; aren’t you afraid, then, at the presence of God, Father and Son? But alas, you don’t want to believe, in case you would have to obey”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Who is this ‘Ambrose’, and why should I trust his credibility?

        • Michael Neville

          Maybe you should turn to Ambrose Bierce for help:

          Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge of things without parallel. —The Devil’s Dictionary (1913)

          But alas, you don’t want to believe, in case you would have to obey

          Ambrose (I assume you’re talking about Aurelius Ambrosius (c. 340 – 397), Bishop of Milan and one of the original “Doctors of the Church”) was making a classic Christian mistake. He assumed, on no evidence, that people want or don’t want to believe. Atheists don’t believe in gods (remember there’s more than the sadistic thug you like) because of wants and desires but rather because of evidence. Because of the complete and utter lack of evidence for the existence of any gods, we don’t believe in them. Obeying or disobeying a figment of the imagination has nothing to do with why we don’t believe.

        • Greg G.

          But alas, you don’t want to believe

          I want to believe in Santa Claus but I can’t because of the lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary.

          I do not want to believe that I will die but I still believe it because of evidence and reason.

          The strength of my belief in things is pretty much parallel to the strength of the evidence presented to me, not my desire to believe or disbelieve.

        • MR

          For those of you who are struggling with your faith, take note of this tactic. You know what you are going through and how difficult your struggle is. You know that this is a lie. This is the kind of tactic they will resort to in order to keep you in the fold. They’d rather accuse you of not wanting to believe instead of admitting that they have no evidence to back up their beliefs.

          Sure, it’s easy to demonize the atheist, but you know that your struggle is real. All of us have known people who have struggled with losing their faith and we know that what they went through is real. Can you see what religion does to your brain? Is this how God works? Blame you for your doubt? Would he pull this kind of vile victim shaming?

          Take note, take note. This is what religion does to people.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Well, people *are* mostly good, or society wouldn’t work.

          My conscience pricks me when I do something wrong, and also commends me when I go the extra mile for somebody….that’s called CBT (Cognitive Behavior Therapy)

        • Pofarmer

          How stupid is this? Here’s a hint. It’s really stupid. You think God created himself to make himself a sacrifice to himself for the sins he created. C’mon man, it’s utter nonsense

        • Keith

          I would easily to the same thing for less, like say saving World hunger or preventing all childhood cancer. Especially if I knew it would just be a bad weekend and a bunch of pain to go thru. Especially knowing that I get to live in my fathers kingdom with the keys at hand. No biggie. Your god and jesus aren’t amazing at all.

        • Why don’t all human judges give punishment proportionate to the crime??

          Oh, wait a minute–they do. I guess that makes God look like an asshole. Sorry.

        • Keith

          Hey Markus, That’s not the issue is it? The judges you refer to weren’t offended or wronged personally. God is different, he demands obedience and is jealous and offended if he doesn’t get it, right? So, as GOD judging he sentences all to eternal damnation for ANY sin. That’s a terrible earthly judge, humans judges are much better. If I only commit one sin, like lying, but I am perfect otherwise, then I get the same eternal sentence as a mass murderer or adulterer or thief. How is that justice? I’m sure there have been many humans with only one sin like lying but otherwise blameless. Again if you sleep with my wife, I can just forgive you and that’s it. I’m not giving you my son to abuse or beat up and crucify to make up for your sin against me. btw, I was a former Christian, and yes, I really believed for 37 years. In fact was a virgin at marriage because I was so committed to Jesus, etc. I went to Promise Keepers, I was an elder at church. I’ve read the bible many times, but then one day I started asking questions like you are. You have doubts too, otherwise you wouldn’t be trolling an atheist site.

        • Why can’t God just forgive us?

          He does!

          I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more (Jer. 31:33–4).

          I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more (Isaiah 43:25).

        • Michael Neville

          But according to the propaganda, your god is merciful. Therefore evil does go unpunished. Besides supposedly Jesus spent an unpleasant afternoon hanging around the cross so we wouldn’t get punished.

        • Greg G.

          Christian theology is a Get of Hell Free card for any evil. Christian evil goes unpunished. Did you not know that?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It makes *assertions*.

          I’m still waiting on EVIDENCE.

          Show it or stop wasting our time.

        • Wait–I thought it was me who was ignorant. I’m rethinking that hypothesis.

        • Markus R

          The only thing I hope you will rethink is your eternal destiny, Bob. Hell is a horrible place.

        • Cute! You think that there’s only one afterlife possibility.

          What if we’re both on the wrong side of Buddhism and wind up in their hell? Or Islam? Or others? Pascal’s Wager cuts both ways, I’m afraid.

        • Markus R

          Pascal’s wager is a foolish way to deal with something like heaven or hell. It denies that truth can be known. If a person thinks “I could be wrong” then he can know nothing at all. Upon what basis do you judge truth, Bob?

        • Greg G.

          There is nothing wrong with admitting uncertainty. You can’t solve the solipsism problem either. Being certain of something with no good evidence is evidence of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

          The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
          —Bertrand Russell

          ETA another letter to “blocquote”.

        • Markus R

          Greg, how to you determine if evidence is correct?

        • Michael Neville

          I don’t know about Greg but I think something is correct based on logic and past experience. For instance it only took me once to learn that flame is quite hot and will cause pain. Knowing that, I worked out that other quite hot things will cause pain.

        • Greg G.

          I haven’t got around the problem of solipsism so anything I see could be a part of the Matrix or just an input to a brain in a vat that I think is me. But is “correct” the right word? It is a matter of whether my interpretation of the evidence is correct, which is probably what you meant. Some tests I use are to determine if it is objective, do others see it as I do. If the evidence is described by others, are they reliable, what might they have to lose by not being truthful. If there are no others involved, is it a physical thing or just a mental thing, am I getting a complete sensory input, are my senses impaired? I started out without knowing anything about evidence but I learned to work out things about temperature, pressure, sounds, vision, smells, tastes. I have learned how things interact from empirical observation enhanced by the study of others who describe how things interact and why.

          Now the question is “How do you determine whether things you can only imagine are real?”

        • Michael Neville

          If a person thinks “I could be wrong” then he can know nothing at all.

          Admitting “I could be wrong” is honest. Claiming that you couldn’t be wrong is not only intellectually dishonest but it’s arrogant, vain and supercilious. I know I could be wrong, I know I’ve often been wrong, and I have nothing but contempt for anyone with the hubris to claim they couldn’t be wrong.

        • Markus R

          Nobody knows all things but God. That is. He is the only trustworthy basis if absolute truth. What is your own basis for absolute truth?

        • Michael Neville

          You’re missing a very important step in your argument. First you have to show that your god exists before you can assign attributes to it.

          The only people arrogant enough to claim absolute truth exists are the religious and a few politicians. I have no basis for absolute truth because I’m not pretentious enough to think it exists. I’m certainly not egotistical enough to think I have absolute truth.

        • Markus R

          Are you absolutely sure that there are no absolutes, Michael?

        • Greg G.

          He answered your question in the last sentence.

        • Michael Neville

          Reread my post, that’ll answer your silly (and yes, I mean SILLY) question.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Markus R, have you NOTHING better than irrelevant attempts to derail?

        • Markus R

          I’m being quite relevant. If one does not acknowledge the existence of absolute truth, he has no truth at all and it is useless to discuss anything further with him. Wouldn’t you agree?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “If one does not acknowledge the existence of absolute truth”

          I don’t believe in anything that hasn’t been demonstrated, or at least is a statistically probable analogue of something that’s been demonstrated.

          With that in mind, demonstrate this ‘absolute truth’ you’re so fervent about.

        • Otto

          OK, for arguments sake I will acknowledge the existence of absolute truth. Now show how the truth you are asserting concerning God, specifically the Christian God, has anything to do with absolute truth. Show. Your. Work.

        • The man who has no defense for his claim of objective moral truth is now arguing absolute truth? Are you going to defend that, or do we just have to trust you that it exists?

        • Greg G.

          Nobody knows all things but God. That is. He is the only trustworthy basis if absolute truth.

          You don’t have access to that. All you have is what you imagine it to be. If you do, then tell me the six numbers that will be drawn in the MegaMillions lottery on October 23, 2018. If the combination gets all six numbers and that you provide them with sufficient time for me to purchase the ticket, I will donate a million dollars divided by however many winning tickets there are to the charity of your choice, If not, you owe me two dollars. I would be impressed if you could give me one combination that I played for the October 16, 2018 drawing.

          What is your own basis for absolute truth?

          I think that I think, therefore I am. It doesn’t mean I am a corporeal being. I could be a subroutine in the Matrix or a dream of Vishnu. Everything else is probabilistic. You can’t get around that either. If you think you can get around it, you don’t understand the problem.

        • Max Doubt

          “Nobody knows all things but God.”

          Yet here I am, a mere mortal, and in any contest outside your imagination I’d easily kick your god’s ass. Shall we start with a simple trivia competition, or can you maybe get your god to show up for a boxing match?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/018d9075880fa729e0a61595800a6b259c3a2af784920b918da65f10a38caecc.png

        • Greg G.

          I would like to see a charcoal lighting contest between you and Marcus’ god thingy. Marcus must do what Elijah did against the priests of Baal and you get to use the benefits of science. The winner gets a steak cooked to order and the loser must eat Steak Tartare.

        • ildi

          That sounds like a win-win!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          *Infected* steak tartare.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nonsense, without evidence.

          Provide some.

          I DON’T BELIEVE YOU.

        • There’s absolute truth? Absolute moral truth?

          That’s fascinating. Demonstrate this.

        • Uh, yeah. I’m honest enough to admit that I could be wrong. How about you? Does that not apply?

          I agree that Pascal’s Wager is foolish, that’s why I’m surprised you alluded to it (with the stick of “Hell is a horrible place”). What you should wonder about is why your loving god invented it. Doesn’t that sound a little too Bronze Age to be from a god who’s actually good?

          I look at evidence and do my imperfect best to find the truth. Why? Is there any other way?

        • Otto

          >>>”Is there any other way?”

          Sure, be a presuppositionalist like Markus and just declare that your views are inherently correct with no need to justify them further. It is a lot less work and mess that way.

        • I think I prefer the old-fashioned way, with evidence.

        • Otto

          But that’s not the path of least resistance.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          &ltInsert Smith-Barney advertisement joke here&gt

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re taking a purposely obtuse and extreme view of the position.

          Also known as ‘strawmanning’.

          Realize that that’s a logical fallacy.

        • Tommy

          Hell is a horrible place.

          How was it? Give us a link to your review on Yelp.

        • Greg G.

          We have been told that the soul is what has free will and that free will requires the possibility of sin, then there must be free will in heaven and the possibility of sin. We have been told that angels have been cast out of heaven because of sin, so that is confirmed.

          If humans are evil and sin everyday, then getting to heaven will be a short-term experience. If hell is on a first-come, first-served basis then the first ones there will be able to find the slightly cooler places while Christians who start in heaven will end up in hell to claim the hotter regions.

          Just a minor variation in temperature will result in significantly more suffering over trillion year periods.

        • ildi
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It’s impolite to sadistically lick your chops while threatening people who you want to force to grovel before you.

          Hadn’t you heard?

        • Sample1

          That there are cultists by the zillions who explicitly condone torture in their waking minds (making war crimes look like playground bullying) is disturbing. But perhaps even more disturbing/perplexing/peculiar is how society largely ignores that theological psychopathy.

          Hard to imagine such thoughts don’t affect the soul, and by soul I mean the poetic natural soul, not some medieval disembodied substance.

          Now that I think about it, a memory surfaced. A Jewish woman I once knew told me her Baptist grandfather, whom she adored, was told by yet another cultist (can’t remember what sect) that her grandfather was going to Hell. It was her way to politely inform me, a practicing Catholic then, not to bring up religion with her. To think of all the time and energy wasted on these phantoms. It may or may not affect cultist minds, that hell-lust, but it does affect others.

          Is there a name for a sometimes-well-meaning-sometimes-not-so-well-meaning jackass?

          Mike

        • As you say. I’ll pray Eldath, Goddess of peace, springs, and waterfalls for you.

          Still thinking those threats can work and do not make God someone worthy of being hated?

        • Michael Neville

          Threats are not a good way to get someone to change their mind. Try evidence instead.

        • Greg G.

          I think he has shown all the visible evidence he has. The rest is in the damaged portion of his brain.

        • Joe

          How do you know?

        • ildi

          Shitty God can’t be perfect if he sucks so bad at his creations-Stockholm syndrome much?

        • Ernest Crunkleton

          “he’s perfectly good and will not tolerate evil,”

          Except for the part where he kills Job’s family on a dare, or killing the earth off via flood, or allowing David to remain king after he murdered a man to sleep with his wife.

          hmm….

        • eric

          (2) he’s perfectly good and will not tolerate evil, (3) man is evil

          Lol do you even see the contradiction? God doesn’t tolerate evil. Man is evil. God tolerates man. One of those statements must not be true.

        • Markus R

          Hi, Eric. God created man good but gave him the ability to obey or not obey him, with the warning that disobedience would result in spiritual death. Man chose, freely, to disobey, becoming evil. This is why we suffer now in a fallen world. Physical illness, physical death and all the suffering we experience are the consequence. And we will be judged when we die. The story is not over. I’m old so it won’t be long before I meet God face to face, but anyone of us could die tomorrow. But we can’t avoid the day that we must face him. God will write the last chapter.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So your supposed ‘god’ is a fuckup that blames its tools and creations, rather than maturely taking responsibility for its mistakes.

          Gotcha.

        • Greg G.

          Sure, according to the story, man chose completely freely, not even encumbered with the knowledge of good and evil so he couldn’t know that not obeying was wrong.

          That story is a fairy tale.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’re lying again.

        • Or maybe you’ll find Ereshkigal (she must be really angry after so many centuries with nobody worshipping her), Hades/Pluto, Kelemvor, or any of the many other deities of death and the afterlife -basing an eternity on what is written on a book could be VERY dangerous-. Or God simply throws you to Hell with no possibilities of defending your case -I doubt you’ll be able to get a claims sheet in the afterlife-.

          Be careful what you wish for. You may get it but not in the way you wanted.

        • Grimlock

          Man chose, freely, to disobey, becoming evil.

          I don’t remember making such a choice. Does that mean that someone made that choice for me? If so, I fail to see why I should bear any moral responsibility for that choice.

        • Markus R

          Shall the creature tell his Creator what is fair? Will God be limited to Western thoughts of individuality? God says that when Adam rebelled, we rebelled. And we prove it to be true when we show our complete inability to keep his moral laws.

          The potter is free to create his pots as he desires.

        • Grimlock

          Yeah… No. It’s blatantly obvious that this idea of inherited moral responsibility is abhorrent.

        • Markus R

          I’m a Christian and I don’t like it either, by nature. The truth is that we have no choice over many things. We have no choice as to when or where we are born, our sex or the color of our skin, whether we are born to good parents or bad, and whether we are born into wealth or poverty.

        • Susan

          I’m a Christian and I don’t like it either.

          What don’t you like about it?

        • Markus R

          While I accept the truths of the Bible, and have been born again by the Spirit if God, I still live in a fallen body with a fallen mind. I still am prone to hate God and my neighbor. Honestly, knowing how holy God is and how sinful I am is uncomfortable. I would, in my human nature, prefer that God just fix everything and eliminate sin and suffering. But I know that he is God and his will is different than mine. I know that my mind and heart prefer idols and not the true God.

        • Susan

          I still live in a fallen body with a fallen mind

          I’m not sure there’s any point in continuing a conversation here. You are not allowed to ask questions. Any doubt you feel is automatically blamed on a sinful nature, which to this ex-christian, is an imaginary concept.

          You are unable to support your claims. You just regurgitate horrifying cult thinking.

          Your natural sense of moral and intellectual thinking are bound and gagged by that little clause.

          If you feel even an inkling that this belief system is morally inadequate (possibly horrendous) or that it doesn’t make sense, it is attributed to your sinful nature.

          That is genuine cult thinking. There are many christians who don’t go that far.

          It’s stuff people wrote in a book. Stories that people tell. One morphing god among countless morphing gods invented by humans.

          You won’t even consider that because you think the devil and my nature are why I would say that.

          It’s tragic that you believe these things. And impossible to converse about your basis for those beliefs. All you want to do is preach.

          You are talking to many ex-christians here. We don’t need the preaching. We know the story. It’s not convincing and it’s horrendous.

          If all you’re going to do is repeat the story, make the same claims without supporting them, then you should probably just stop.

          Why do you believe what you believe?

        • Markus R

          Susan, I am not bereft of a mind. My faith is not blind but is accompanied by intellectual assent. While I believe that there it is evidence that exhorts and encourages me, I do not believe it is why I have faith because the Bible makes it clear that my faith is a gift of God.

          Because I believe that the Bible is foundational truth, my worldview has been shaped by it. I once thought that evidence was sufficient for conversion and it shaped my apologetics. As my understanding of scripture has grown, I have come to understand the true source of my faith as God.

          God is not physical but spiritual. He is transcendent. That is, his truths transcend the material world.

          You ask why I believe. As a former atheist I can attest that it was not the discovery of evidence that caused my conversion. If you are seeking a “why” as an experiential account I can certainly share that with you but it is merely my subjective account.

          I can tell you, for example, that I became disatisfied with my prior conclusions about God derived by my studies in science. I could tell you that I became increasingly convicted of transcendental truths such as goodness, virtue, justice, integrity and beauty. But these were merely my subjective and personal experience that accompanied my salvation. I could tell you that I became aware that the material world could no longer offer me any sound basis for truth.

          Experientially there was a time in which I was able to read the Bible with a new understanding that had formerly not been there. I now understand by the revelation of scripture that I was being reborn by the Holy Spirit.

          I am convinced by those same scriptures that i could no more facilitate my own conversion than I could change the courses of the planets in the solar system. I was dead, spiritually, but God gave me life.

          I’m more than glad to discuss the depths of the Bible, scientific and archeological evidences with fellow Christians but I have found it if no use with unbelievers. Until they repent and trust in Christ, my presentation will simply be rejected. Further I will have done wrong to my Lord by making a mortal his judge.

          Since you have left your former beliefs, what is your current source of truth?

        • epeeist

          Since you have left your former beliefs, what is your current source of truth?

          This was done long ago by Aristotle, though it has gone updates since then:

          To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.

          If you want a pithier version, a statement is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts.

        • Markus R

          “…a statement is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts.”

          Ok, so reality corresponds to facts. So truth is that which corresponds to reality. I can live with that definition.

          How do you know what is real?

        • epeeist

          How do you know what is real?

          It didn’t take you long to go nuclear did it?

          The problem is that if I do not know what is really then, ceteris paribus, neither do you. In which case your claims to knowledge about, for example “biblical foundation truth” are no better than my claim about, say, Big Bang cosmology.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Excellent link…thanks.

        • epeeist

          It is one of the essay’s in his book, Believing Bullshit. A definite recommend.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Got it….£7.42 on Kindle…cheers.

        • Markus R

          Could you be wrong as to the facts? That is, are you certain of your conclusions as to truth?

        • Otto

          >>>”I still live in a fallen body with a fallen mind.”

          Then there is no reason to trust you.

        • Sample1

          I seldom leave the other forum so don’t feel like you have to respond as you’ve got plenty on your plate with others here. Just wanted to make a quick observation.

          The truth is that we have no choice over many things. We have no choice as to when or where we are born, our sex, or the color of our skin, whether we are born to good parents or bad, and whether we are born into wealth or poverty.

          Agreed. But if you notice, all of the above scenarios have natural explanations. And if someone doesn’t have a particular explanation for whatever reason, we can reasonably say that a natural one exists. It’s also true nobody picks the religious culture they are born into. It’s why we see religions largely based on geography.

          There is zero need to appeal to the supernatural for meaning unlike inherited so-called sin. As such, your reply is a category error. Just so you know, in case you don’t, this means you have to go back to the drawing board and come up with something different.

          Mike
          Edit done.

        • Grimlock

          I agree that there are many things about our circumstances that are the result of external factors.

          I’ll follow up on other stuff in another comment. Want to try to avoid having our discussion diverge into too many different discussions.

        • Grimlock

          Actually, here’s a simpler response: Can you think of a single case where we would consider it to be fair that moral responsibility was inherited in the same way as the alleged original sin?

        • Markus R

          The underlying question is, “Does God have the right to create us as he desires?” I understand your implied objection and my human self agrees that to us it seems unfair. Is it “fair” that I was born with no choice over the circumstances of my birth? We have to recognize that we are mere creatures and God is God.

        • Otto

          That is a cop out answer to the question. Under your belief either God made us to make moral decisions and judgments or he didn’t. Morally we know it is wrong to punish someone for the behavior of someone else.
          So you can argue that…
          1) It is actually morally acceptable to punish someone for the crimes of someone else…good luck with that one
          2) Or that God can act under a different set of morality … but then that would make morality subjective…and we can’t have that can we.

        • Joe

          Shall the creature tell his Creator what is fair?

          Why not?

          God says that when Adam rebelled, we rebelled.

          Then he was wrong there. Demonstrably so.

          And we prove it to be true when we show our complete inability to keep his moral laws.

          Some of us, anyway. For some laws.

        • Markus R

          How shall we judge God as wrong? What source of moral truth shall we turn to to make this judgement? Since he is God, he is the source of all truth. And we have evidence by the laws he has written upon our conscience. We inherently know that the Ten Commandments are true—we know that murder, theft, lies, and sexual immorality are wrong, for example.

          We know on our hearts these things yet our fallen nature means that we are prone to hate God and hate our neighbor. When we strive to prove that God does not exist or we try to rationalize our sins we give evidence of our fallen nature. We strive to create a God we prefer rather than admit we are rebels who deserve to be judged and punished.

          But God is not only just. He is also merciful and good…so good that he provided a way to be redeemed. Nobody will be saved against their own will. Nobody will receive forgiveness and eternal life against their will. Nobody will be in hell who would rather repent and trust in God.

        • Joe

          How shall we judge God as wrong? What source of moral truth shall we turn to to make this judgement? Since he is God, he is the source of all truth

          Let’s use god’s own laws then. What could be better.

          We inherently know that the Ten Commandments are true—we know that murder, theft, lies, and sexual immorality are wrong, for example.

          We knew that before they were written.

          But God is not only just. He is also merciful and good.

          No worries then. See you in heaven. I’m buying the beer.

        • Ignorant Amos

          But God is not only just. He is also merciful and good.

          Except in the yarn when he’s not, which means that according to the bullshite nonsense…

          No worries then. See you in heaven. I’m buying the beer.

          Ya have, ya won’t, and ya can’t.

        • Susan

          How shall we judge God as wrong?

          How do you judge God just, merciful and good?

          Either you can judge it or not.

        • Markus R

          You make a fair point, Susan. We know he is who he is by the truth he has revealed. He tells us. And the cross of Jesus Christ displays it.

        • Susan

          We know he is by the truth he has revealed.

          Do you have anything less circular?

          All I see are human claims that don’t add up.

          You saying “It’s true because it’s true because it’s true.” is what any cult member will say.

          What is different about your claims and the claims of other cults?

        • Markus R

          Circular reasoning is, to an extent, unavoidable. This is true in your worldview, as well. What is your source of axiomatic, absolute truth?

        • Susan

          Circular reasoning is, to an extent, unavoidable.

          It’s all you have. A exists because A exists and not believing A exists can only be the work of a diabolical agent (predicted by A) working against A. .

          What is your source of axiomatic, absolute truth?

          I never claimed to have a source for those. Because I never claimed those. Don’t start on the “then there is no grounding for anything whatsoever” nonsense. It’s nonsense.

          If you claim to have absolute truth, you can’t use the claim to support itself. Also, you can’t pretend that without absolute truth, no one can make any sort of claim.

          Or you wouldn’t drive through a green light ever. Or order food at a restaurant. Or buy food at a supermarket. Or forage for food, if you don’t trust those sources.

          You keep claiming those and then use circular reasoning for those claims.

          I’ll ask again

          What is the difference between your claims and the claims of other cults?

          This is a very important question.

        • Markus R

          It would make no sense to discuss things further with someone who does not even believe in absolute truth. Just an exercise of speculation. But I’ve enjoyed the interaction, Susan. Have a good night!

        • Susan

          It would make no sense to discuss things further with someone who does not even believe in absolute truth.

          You could could convince me if you could define it and support it. What are you insisting that I believe in?

          But I’ve enjoyed the interaction.

          It wasn’t an interaction. It was an excuse for you to repeat a lot of apparently imaginary stuff that we’ve all heard a thousand times before, without taking any responsibility for your claims.

          Have a good night too.

        • Ignorant Amos

          This is you dishonestly body swerving the hard questions…par for the course with you lot.

        • MR

          I was thinking about the silly absolute truth thing the other day. I’m standing here on ground that is spinning approximately 800 miles per hour around the earth’s axis, while orbiting the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, which is spinning around a galaxy at I don’t know what speed, which is being flung across a universe that is expanding as we speak…, and yet I have no problem navigating my little world. I don’t need an absolute point of reference to live my life.

        • Susan

          I don’t need an absolute point of reference to live my life.

          No one does. Not only does no one need one, no one can show they have one.

          We can have more and less precise references when we calibrate our decisions. But no one relies on absolute truth. It just feels good for them to say it. It makes them feel they have it and we don’t.

          We have Markus claiming it exists, providing no understanding of what it would look like if it did. Or even if it’s a meaningful phrase.

          And if you don’t play along, Markus will say he can’t talk to you.

          Because you don’t accept a claim he takes no responsibility to support.

          I’m pretty burned out at this point. I’m about ready to give up.

          —–

          Edit: 18 minutes later. Grammer and spelin’.

        • MR

          It just feels good for them to say it. It makes them feel they have it and we don’t.

          This. Except they know they don’t, hence the squirrels.

        • epeeist

          What is your source of axiomatic, absolute truth?

          Let us suppose I came up with a statement that was capable of being tested, it doesn’t particularly matter what it was.

          Let us suppose that every time it was tested then it was veridical, that every consequence of the statement turned out to be veridical too. Let us suppose that the testing went on for thousands of years and no exceptions were found. Would this make it “absolutely true”?

        • Markus R

          So, basically you are assuming that it will can never change? How do you know that for certain?

        • epeeist

          Nice try Sonny Jim, but that isn’t how it works.

          Answer the question I raised first.

        • Markus R

          How does your world work? You believe that you can find absolute truth in past observations? No, I don’t agree. Hume spoke very eloquently to the problem of induction.

        • epeeist

          How does your world work?

          Are you actually incapable of answering a question that is put to you?

          Hume spoke very eloquently to the problem of induction.

          Indeed he did, so much so that Kant was driven to claiming that space was Euclidean and Newton’s dynamics were the absolute truth about the way the universe worked in order to avoid Hume’s conclusion. Of course we now know that Kant was wrong.

          In fact the only thing we can say is that propositions that are analytic a priori true are purely semantic, for example that “all bachelors are unmarried men”.

          It looks therefore as though even if we came across an “absolute truth” we would not know that we had done so. That all our knowledge is both contingent and corrigible.

        • Markus R

          Are you incapable of being civil?

          Thus, without God as transcendent truth, you are clearly incapable of having absolute truth. Which makes our discussion pointless. If you have no claims to absolute truth, I think I’ve discussed things as far as I can. Good day, Sir.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Are you incapable of being civil?

          You think your passive/aggressive bullshit is being civil? Wise up, will ya.

          The penny is finally dropping.

          Conversation with you has been pointless from the get go…you just are not interested in two way conversation. You are one of those cunts that wants to talk at people, but you have nothing of substance to say that we haven’t heard thousands of times.

          Since you are driveling on like a broken record, the sooner ya get around to realising that you are nothing but a waste of time and do one. There is nothing more to say.

        • epeeist

          Are you incapable of being civil?

          Yours is the incivility, you have constantly avoided answering questions that have been put to you, answered question with question or been unduly evasive.

          Thus, without God as transcendent truth, you are clearly incapable of having absolute truth.

          You beg the question not once but twice in the same sentence, assuming that “transcendent truth” and your god actually exist. Until you can provide some justification for their existence I see no reason why I should accept either.

          I think I’ve discussed things as far as I can.

          I take it from this that you can offer no rebuttal to the points that I have made.

        • Markus R

          I don’t have any desire to pursue discussion with someone who has no source of absolute knowledge. It’s pointless. But I’ll leave you with the last word.

        • epeeist

          I don’t have any desire to pursue discussion with someone who has no source of absolute knowledge.

          Then you are going to lead a very lonely life.

          You came here and made assertion after assertion about your god and its supposed properties, the existence of absolute truth and objective morality and so on. However what then happened is that you were asked to justify these assertions, something I guess that your fellow religionists have never asked you to do. It has become apparent that you simply do not have the background knowledge or capabilities to actually do.

          Hence the refusal to continue with conversations not just with me but with several others on the site.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t have any desire to pursue discussion with someone who has no source of absolute knowledge.

          You don’t have one either. No ody does. You should become a monk and take a vow of silence.

        • Greg G.

          You believe that you can find absolute truth in past observations?

          No. I don’t even pretend to have absolute truth. I don’t believe that you have absolute truth either.

        • Grimlock

          What is your source of axiomatic, absolute truth?

          What is yours?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Navel gazing?

        • Markus R

          God. He has revealed himself in nature and in the Bible.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nope. You can’t demonstrate your premise is anything more than your imagination.

        • Greg G.

          What is your source of axiomatic, absolute truth?

          I do not make such a claim. My senses may or may not be reliable but they appear to be reliable enough to allow me to navigate the world that seems to be around me. I know what tends to be successful and what hurts. Taking leave of my senses and believing on faith can hurt unless what you have faith in is completely meaningless.

        • Markus R

          Without absolute truth we can only engage in speculations. As you point out, our senses, at best, appear to be reliable. We cannot know they are reliable. Indeed we can’t have any absolute certainty but only degrees of certainty based on presumption. It’s great Fur an evening of chat over a bottle of red wine, but not helpful in acquiring certainty.

          Yet all men know of God, even if they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. His laws are written across our consciences.

        • Greg G.

          Without absolute truth we can only engage in speculations.

          No, we can have degrees of certainty according to the strength of the evidence.

          When you think you have absolute certainty because of what you read in the writings of people who didn’t know where the sun went at night, you are basing your certainty on uninformed guesswork.

        • Otto

          >>>”Without absolute truth we can only engage in speculations.”

          It is not enough to declare that there is an absolute truth, you have to demonstrate that your claim is in fact absolutely true.

          Like with this statement….

          >>>”His laws are written across our consciences.”

          It is not enough to declare that…you are missing a whole step.

        • Markus R

          God states it to be so. What is your source for absolute truth?

        • Otto

          God has stated nothing…everything you claim God said was written by a human.

        • Markus R

          Indeed humans wrote the Bible, Otto.

          But what is YOUR source of truth?

        • Otto

          It doesn’t matter Marcus…YOUR source for truth comes from other humans…not from God.

        • Markus R

          Is God not capable of using humans to write down his words?

          There is no absolute truth without God. Without God you and I are nothing more than time and chance acting upon matter. All abstracts become meaningless.

        • Otto

          People throughout history have claimed to have spoken on behalf of God…the writers of the Bible are no different.

          Is God not capable of using humans to write down his words?

          God has no power to communicate without humans…and humans contradict each other. Your truth comes from humans.

        • Markus R

          Otto, how much do you know that was not conveyed to you by other humans?

        • Otto

          Exactly…but I am not the one claiming other humans were in fact speaking for God…your truth is no different than any other human’s.

        • Markus R

          So be it, Otto. Good day.

        • Otto

          It’s a harsh truth Markus…I am glad you now acknowledge it.

        • epeeist

          Looks into crystal ball, “I can see a visit to Croydon for Markus R. A visit that will be upon him all too soon.”

        • Ignorant Amos

          No crystal ball is needed for that prophetic statement to be made.

        • Greg G.

          What is the absolute truth about whether Jesus at the passover meal before he was crucified or whether the passover was after he was dead and buried?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Which is why no gods are necessary for absolute truth ya idiot.

          You just shafted your own position. Brilliant.

          https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your truth comes from humans.

          And it is way far from being even nearly absolute.

        • Greg G.

          His absolute truth is based on the writings of people who didn’t know where the sun went at night.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And who believed the human species began with a single man and woman in a magic garden created along with the whole universe in 6 days….absolute truth, my arse….absolute ignorance more like it.

        • Greg G.

          Nobody pretends to have absolute truth. You pretend that you have it. If you knew you had it, you could prove it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          First the clown needs to define what he means by the term. That’s the problem with holy rolling mindwankers, they never define their terms. Handy when the goalposts need shifting later on.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Wise ta fuck up. Know nothing tosser…ffs learn something while yer here….

          The Relativity of Wrong

          https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

          Yet all men know of God, even if they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness.

          Ballix, ya know nothing imbecile.

          The Pirahã people of South America have no concept of a supreme being or god. And most people on the planet probably haven’t even heard of, or believe in, your version of the fuckwittery ya Coco.

        • Greg G.

          We know he is who he is by the truth he has revealed.

          How can you believe someone who has unlimited power to fool you?

        • Markus R

          :-D. I like your cynicism!

          Thankfully we are not able to choose God but he chooses us. His Spirit gives life to the spiritually dead and it blows where it will. But if you have been blessed to hear the Gospel he will turn none away that respond, turn from their ways and trust in him.

        • Greg G.

          Doesn’t an argument with that small of a radius make you dizzy?

        • Ignorant Amos
        • MR

          Let’s not forget that we’re not judging God, we’re judging whether the story makes sense. It doesn’t.

        • Susan

          Let’s not forget that we’re not judging God, we’re judging whether the story makes sense

          I know. But according to Markus, the story is true because it’s true and we’re not allowed to judge “God”.

          If we gently nudge against that, it’s because of our sinful nature. It’s impenetrable. Where do we go from here?

          It’s like saying, “I don’t believe that zombies exist because there is no support for that claim”.

          And the person I say it to genuinely believes that the only reason I would say it is if I were a zombie or being deceived by zombies.

          It doesn’t.

          I agree.

          But to someone who believes in a zombie takeover, only a zombie would say that.

        • Greg G.

          A person who believe in zombies is proof of zombies. Who would believe such a thing unless their brain had been eaten?

        • Greg G.

          How shall we judge God as wrong?

          Why didn’t God just put Jesus in the Garden of Eden instead of Adam? Jesus wouldn’t need a helpmate. He could be fed by the animals and angels and debate the serpent into submission with trite aphorisms.

          How can you not judge an omnipotent potter negatively when he blames the pot for how he made it and is willing to punish it forever? If your god thingy has a head, he ain’t right in it.

        • Markus R

          We can second guess and judge God all day long. But it’s silly—pots judging the potter. We are talking about the eternal and omnipotent Creator. We can’t control our own lives and world but we are to judge God?

        • Greg G.

          It is pots judging the potter for judging the pots. The latter part is the silly part. But the silliest part is believing there is anybody being judged.

        • Markus R

          I cannot make you see what you refuse to see, Greg, but I thank you for the conversation. You seem sincere. Good night

        • Ignorant Amos

          You seem sincere.

          He is, something you are demonstrably not.

        • MR

          extra ^ for ‘trite aphorisms’ observation

        • Grimlock

          We inherently know that the Ten Commandments are true—we know that murder, theft, lies, and sexual immorality are wrong, for example.

          Is this assertion something that can be falsified for you?

        • Ignorant Amos

          …and sexual immorality are wrong,…

          Bwaaaaahahahaha….has Markus even read his Holy Book do ya think?

        • Markus R

          No, it’s not.

        • Ignorant Amos

          We inherently know that the Code of Hammurabi is true….your god followers stole those commandments.

          See how easy this shite is to claim?

          Give us something, anything, constructive.

        • Greg G.

          But God is not only just. He is also merciful and good…

          When God is just, he is not merciful. When God is merciful, he is not just. So “just” and “merciful” are inappropriate adjectives. The concepts conflict like a married bachelor. If neither just nor merciful, he is arbitrary, so “good” doesn’t apply, either.

          Claims like yours show your god thingy is imaginary.

        • Michael Neville

          How shall we judge God as wrong? What source of moral truth shall we turn to to make this judgement?

          According to your propaganda your god is a sadistic, narcissistic bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old. He kills people just because he can. He orders genocide and sexual slavery. He condones rape and chattel slavery. If that’s a source of “moral truth” than that truth is decided immoral.

          Since he is God, he is the source of all truth.

          How can a figment of the imagination be a source for anything? You have to provide evidence that your god exists before you can claim attributes for it.

          We inherently know that the Ten Commandments are true

          I don’t inherently know about keeping one particular day of the week “holy”. Plus I’ve known a fair number of parents who are worthy of disdain and disrespect from everyone (some years ago I had to stop a man from beating his young child with a shovel, tell me that guy was worthy of respect). Coveting others’ belongings is the basis for capitalism. You really haven’t thought the Ten Commandments through.

          The rest of your screed is pure sermon and not worth fisking.

        • Markus R

          You’ve gone in a tirade about God’s morality but failed to state your own source of moral truth. Without God there is no basis for absolute morals, e.g., good and evil, or right and wrong.

        • Greg G.

          You don’t need absolutes to determine more vs. less, slower vs. faster, better vs worse. People knew horses were faster than people without knowing the speed of light.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Isn’t it a sad indictment of humanity that there are people in the western world that are actually this stupid in the 21st century.

          Idiocracy is potentially a real threat.

        • Michael Neville

          My source of moral truth is my own subjective opinion. I think killing people on a whim is immoral, your god does it repeatedly. Therefore, according to my opinion, your god is immoral.

          There is no such think as “absolute morals”, all morality is completely subjective. Besides, as I’ve told you before, it’s impossible for an imaginary, make-believe, non-existent critter like your god to be a source of anything. If you pretend your god is a source of morality, you’ve got to do something that you’ve been repeatedly told to do, show evidence that your god exists. So get started on the evidence, god boy.

        • Markus R

          Well, there it is—subjective morality. You don’t posses knowledge, only opinions. No reason to continue.

        • Otto

          You mean like the opinions you hold based on what people wrote 2000-4000 years ago.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And whose opinion only fuckwits actually take seriously.

          I mean, how many of the 613 absolute YahwehJesus truths opinions, do anyone really give a shite about in this day and age?

        • Greg G.

          He has justified knowledge. You have unjustified absolute truth. That even sounds dangerous.

        • epeeist

          Well, there it is—subjective morality.

          I disagree with Michael Neville in that I think that we our morality is inter-subjectively agreed. It doesn’t make it objective, but there again I have never come across anyone who can justify the claim that objective morality exists. One would need to ask those whose expertise is meta-ethics whether such a justification is possible.

          I would go further, I don’t think those who do claim that “objective morality” exists actually know what they mean by the phrase. I have constantly asked those who make the claim to give an example and justification and never had a response. So, give us an example of something that is objectively moral, tell us why it is objectively moral and how you know that it is.

        • Markus R

          You don’t even have a claim to absolute truth. Why would I bother? Speculation can be entertaining but it serves no purpose besides stimulating neuronal activity. Thanks, but no thanks.

        • epeeist

          And once again we see that you are unable to justify the claims that you make.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that “absolute morality” exists? Remember that if you’re going to pretend your imaginary god is the source of “absolute morality” then you have to show its existence first.

        • Markus R

          So, you are asking fir proof. Proof presupposes truth, knowledge and logic. So what is truth in your worldview? Let’s agree on some definitions, first.

        • epeeist

          So what is truth in your worldview?

          We have already done this, see this post from the other day.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Reset Button hit before going off to Croydon….a wee bit different.

        • Greg G.

          The potter who blames his pots for how they turn out is crazy.

        • Markus R

          Mistakes? Not at all. God creates some for honor and some for dishonor.

        • Greg G.

          I didn’t say “mistakes”. I said “crazy”. You have taken it to another level. Creating a sentient being for dishonor and eternal punishment on purpose is sadistic.

        • Markus R

          Does it matter that God is not who we want him to be? It only matters if he is God.

          Greg, I’ve hit some bad news and some worse news— the bad news is that God exists. The worse news is that he is very, very good and we are evil. He’s furious.

        • Greg G.

          Are you going to bring evidence or more empty assertions?

          If there is a god thingy, it is completely indifferent and indistinguishable from an indifferent universe with no god thingy.

        • Grimlock

          Okay, let’s take a bit of a meta view of our exchange so far.

          What I think we’ve achieved so far is to agree that we find it unfair that moral responsibility is inherited.

          However, I’d like to mention an idea that I like, which is about how to facilitate conversation across differences of opinion. And it’s quite simple. You make arguments based on where you think you can find common ground.

          That’s why I focused on an idea that I find unfair, namely inherited moral responsibility. That’s an assessment pretty much anyone can make, and we can – and did – find some agreement there.

          Consider your response. How do you think it goes over with someone who does not believe in your Bible? Does it perhaps rest on some assumptions that a non-believer probably would not accept?

        • Markus R

          Thank you for the helpful comment. You summed up things very well. You make a salient point—what I’m claiming does not go over well with those who do not accept God’s Word. And you could, from your perspective, say that I’m assuming things that you do not. Indeed I’m making the claim that this universe and life cannot be understood without God and his revealed truth. Indeed, it is impossible to have any knowledge of truth without God.

          I say this because God has said it and I believe that all men have knowledge of God. Those in denial are suppressing the truth to avoid dealing with the fact that he is holy and just, and they love their sins.

          From a biblical worldview, no other position is tenable—God states that all wisdom and knowledge are found in Christ. And for this reason it is impossible to have knowledge without him. He is truth.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Another non-answer and pile of vacuous drivel.

        • Greg G.

          He thinks he is on Jeopardy! and must respond in the form a question.

        • MR

          It’s the tactic of cults. Victim blaming. Victim shaming. It’s disgusting.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I spent last night watching a charity night on Channel 4….Stand Up to Cancer.

          It was a heart rending night of entertainment to raise money for cancer research. That’s to fund SCIENCE investigation into combating cancer.

          It was interspersed with testimonials of cancer victims, many young children who died the most suffering of ends. Needless to say, two bottles of wine and not a dry eye in the house went to effing and jeffing god fuckwits…but I had enough refrain to stay off CE and venting.

          Hamish’s story had me bubbling particularly bad….

          https://www.standuptocancer.org.uk/

        • Grimlock

          Thank you for your thorough answer. Let me just note that what I say next is not intended to mean that you’re an immoral person.

          Our discussion is over. I see no point in continuing a discussion with you, because – as you note here and in other comments – you’re not open to assessing the validity of your own religious beliefs. They’re your starting position, and they’re not open to falsification for you.

          If one part isn’t open to considering the possibility of being wrong, a discussion is futile. As I’m not currently in the mood for a quixotic quest, that’s it for now.

          If I’m mistaken, and you are indeed open to assessing the plausibility of your religious beliefs, please let me know.

        • Markus R

          I’ve enjoyed the conversation, Grimlock. Perhaps we have exhausted it. Yes, i stand by God as absolute truth because there is no other source that can be demonstrated.

          Without God, what we think of as reality is no more than time and chance acting on matter. You and I are then merely a bag of chemical reactions. I’m a bottle of Coke and you are a bottle of Sprite. Shake us up and we simple spew different forms of effervescence—I’m Christian fizz and you are Atheist fizz. Our thoughts and feelings, indeed all abstracts, are an illusion.

          So, without God, all of this conversation has no values but I’ve enjoyed your thoughts and kindness.

        • Joe

          God created man good but gave him the ability to obey or not obey him, with the warning that disobedience would result in spiritual death.

          So what’s the problem? Why is religion so concerned with earthly issues?

          This is why we suffer now in a fallen world. Physical illness, physical death and all the suffering we experience are the consequence.

          That seems a very odd thing to believe, contrary to science.

          And we will be judged when we die

          So we get judged twice? We suffer on earth will sickness, disease and death, only go get resurrected and do the whole thing all over again? Only this time it’s permanent? Why tack a few brief years of existence in front of an eternity? That’s like lighting a candle outside, on a sunny day, to see more clearly.

        • Markus R

          You have summed it up fairly well, Joe. We can see that this human existence is not pleasant. Most humans in the history of mankind have had a fairly miserable existence. We suffer all the things you listed and we are prine to further our own misery through hatred and war, envy and greed. But it is a rare man that blames himself and not something or someone else.

          We will all die, despite our fantasy that our intellect and technology will somehow create immortality and utopia.

          I like the way you picture the futility of life on this earth—a few years tacked in front of eternity. You are closer to the kingdom of God than you think.

        • Joe

          Except it seems really futile.

          A lot of concepts of the afterlife display a poor grasp of how long eternity really is, and don’t attempt to address the problems therein.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You really are this drunk on the Kool-Aid…what a hopeless case.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Ok, he’ll tolerate evil, if that evil sucks to him in the proper way. And doesn’t question the assertion that God is perfectly good.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Lying again.

        • Joe

          Of course if you had any knowledge of ancient literature you would be astounded by the reliability of what exists.

          Of course, which is why we take almost all historical claims with a pinch of salt, and try and verify them wherever possible. If something is impossible to verify, we accept it on probability alone as “the best we have”.

        • MR

          Makes God look fallible.

        • epeeist

          A difference in days,

          Means that (at least) one of the accounts does not correspond to the facts and hence must be false.

          As it is of course the accounts are contraries rather than contradictories, so both could be false.

    • Otto

      >>>”There are no truths concerning God’s messsage to mankind that are contradicted in the Bible.”

      And Christians constantly argue with each other about what exactly? If your statement were true we wouldn’t see 40,000+ Christian denominations.

    • Greg G.

      In Point #3 of the article, it is pointed out that John 17:19-23 has Jesus pray that all those who believe in him would agree in unity and that the unity would be so impressive that the rest of the world would believe because of it. Instead we see over 45,000 different denominations, not unity, and it is nothing that impresses the rest of the world. That makes Jesus the greatest prayer failure of all time. Even if Christians agree on the words of the NT, they disagree on the meaning.

      • kingdietrich

        Didn’t Jesus also say he would return to earth in his follower’s own lifetime? Just two examples of why it’s all a bunch of made up hooey.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, some who were standing there would not taste death, whatever that means.

          Paul also spoke of those being dead being raised first when the Messiah came but only in the third person while speaking in the first person of those who would be alive at that time. He also included the people he was writing to.

    • Ficino

      So you concede that there are contradictions in the Bible. Good to know.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Here’s a reference for you, Laughing Boy.

      http://bibviz.com/

      Get back to me when you *believe* you’ve explained it all away.

      • Markus R

        I’m finished explaining it all way. What now? Why all this effort to disprove the Bible when you know that God exists?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nonsense.

          You’re trying to throw sand in the bull’s eyes to avoid both horns of your dilemma.

          NOT my problem.

  • Guzzman

    What about the virgin birth fiasco? According to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin. This claim, however, completely destroys the core Christian claim that Jesus was a legitimate heir to David’s throne and king of the Jews. The virgin birth claim undermines this fundamental church teaching because tribal lineage is traced only through a person’s father, never the mother. This principle is clearly stated in Numbers 1:18.

    According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, and was not related to Joseph. A human Jewish father, however is essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah must be.

    And if Jesus was born of a virgin (Joseph was not the biological father), then why the fabricated biblical genealogies attempting to trace Jesus back to King David’s bloodline through Joseph? The virgin birth doctrine rules out Jesus being the messiah, because the messiah had to come from the bloodline of King David.

    • Note also that Isaiah 7, the OT foundation for the virgin birth prophecy, is very clearly not a claim of virgin (that is, miraculous) birth.

      • Guzzman

        Good point – Matthew’s misuse of Isaiah to prophecy a “virgin” birth was based on a mistranslation. In the original Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 the word almah meant a young woman of childbearing age who had not yet given birth and who might or might not be a virgin, however the Greek translation, the Septuagint, used by Matthew rendered almah as parthenos, a word which means virgin.

        • Greg G.

          That is the only place in Isaiah that “almah” is used but the Hebrew word for virgin, “bĕthuwlah”, is used five times.

          Proverbs 30:18-20 uses “almah” in reference to an adultress.

        • Not even that. Suppose Isaiah actually had said “virgin.” So what? The story says, “See that virgin over there? She’ll bear a child.” That’s hardly a big deal–she’ll have sex, then she’ll be pregnant, then she’ll deliver. Happens all the time. She’s a virgin at that time, but nothing says that she wouldn’t need to have sex to make a baby.

    • sandy

      Well done. Checkmate.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Competing narratives 😉

  • RichardSRussell

    My own favorite is that they couldn’t even get out of the very 1st chapter of the very 1st book in the New Testament without this giant, blatant, in-your-face contradiction, a mere 2 verses apart from each other:

    (23) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, God with us….
    (25) And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

    This passage gets read from every pulpit in America around Xmas time every year, and all the sheep in the congregation just sit there and nod approvingly.

    • It’s what passes for humor within Christianity, I suppose.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      It makes perfect sense. The child’s name was Jesus. but his name was called Emmanuel.

      “You are sad,” the Knight said in an anxious tone: “Let me sing you a song to comfort you.”
      “Is it very long?” Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.
      “It’s long,” said the Knight, “but it’s very, very beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it – either it brings the tears to their eyes, or else -”
      “Or else what?” said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.
      “Or else it doesn’t, you know. The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks’ Eyes.’”
      “Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?” Alice said, trying to feel interested.
      “No, you don’t understand,” the Knight said, looking a little vexed. “That’s what the name is called. The name really is ‘The Aged Aged Man.’”
      “Then I ought to have said ‘That’s what the song is called’?” Alice corrected herself.
      “No, you oughtn’t: that’s quite another thing! The song is called ‘Ways And Means’: but that’s only what it’s called, you know!”
      “Well, what is the song, then?” said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.
      “I was coming to that,” the Knight said. “The song really is ‘A-sitting On A Gate’: and the tune’s my own invention.”

      • Michael Neville

        ‘ll tell thee everything I can;
        There’s little to relate.
        I saw an aged, aged man,
        A-sitting on a gate.
        “Who are you, aged man?” I said.
        “And how is it you live?”
        And his answer trickled through my head
        Like water through a sieve.

        • ildi

          Read it too fast, thought it said “A-shitting on a gate” and I was impressed.

  • rogero

    “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (Mark 16:8)”

    So if these vital witnesses told no-one what happened, how did ‘Mark’ know enough to write his detailed account (some 30 years later) ?

    • Greg G.

      He made up the story using the literature of the day, the Septuagint, some of Paul’s writings, Josephus’ Jewish Wars, and perhaps, Vespasian propaganda. The women not telling were to account for the reader not hearing it before.

      • So the women not telling accounts for everyone not hearing it … except for the author of Mark. It’s kinda hard to imagine threading that needle.

        • Greg G.

          I think he was able to tickle one woman with a feather until she finally told him.

        • rogero

          No, he used a thistle, not a feather.
          He was one of those Thistleonians. ‘Thessalonians’ is a misprint.

        • Greg G.

          I think you are right, but was it 1 Thistleonian or 2 Thistleonians?

        • rogero

          I think 1. Using one thistle to tickle is just a bit of fun. Using the whole plant, that’s perversion.

        • rubellapox2

          Hahahaha……

        • Michael Neville

          So it was a test-tickle.

    • Joe

      He watched the CCTV footage.

  • Tommy

    Easy. The Bible was written by the Author(s) of Confusion.

  • Kevin K

    The 10-year (at minimum) discrepancy between the birth accounts of “Jesus” is a pretty big one.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Hey, the Jeez was trying to get a job in Hollywood…you know they *always* go for the younger actors….

      (maybe that’s why the fundies are so pissed off at Hollywood, for scorning their boy?)

      😉

  • Ficino

    From Markus R I do not see an argument set forth and developed. I do not see marshalling of evidence. The most I’ve seen beyond bare assertions is a claim about ancient fragments that looks like something from Josh MacDowell.

    I call, troll.

    • Sample1

      Dammit. I just got here. /s

      Mike

  • ralphmeyer

    They should call that frequently misbegotten library the ‘Holey Bible” because of all the holes, errors, and internal contradictions not to mention contradictions with provable evidence-based reality in it. Anyone who reads it needs to do it with a pound of salt at hand and a good load of disbelief!

    • Alle_1

      Re: “Holey Bible”. There already IS one, “Holey Bible Old Testament”. Havent read “New Testament”–not sure it got written but it is mentioned on the last page. Written by J B McPherson, published by Splendor Publishing, Danville KY 1991. Hard to find but worth the search. Library of Congress Catalog Card #91-62427.

    • kingdietrich

      Holey Buybull

  • Silverwolf13

    My favorite Biblical contradiction is the Nativity story, which should actually be the Nativity stories. There are two, one in Matthew and the other in Luke. They agree that Mary and Joseph had a baby in Bethlehem, but there the agreement ends.

    In Luke, Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth and traveled down to Bethlehem for the census. They stayed in a stable, had the baby, presented him at the temple when he was 12 days old, and returned to Nazareth. No Magi, no killing of innocents, and no flight into Egypt.

    In Matthew, Mary and Joseph lived in Joseph’s house in Bethlehem, where they had the baby. They were then visited by the three Magi, fled to Egypt to avoid Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, and later moved to Nazareth. No census, no stable, and no presentation in the temple.

    Note that the Magi never went to a stable and the crèche scenes are all Biblically inaccurate.

    • kingdietrich

      The biggest contradiction (in the real world) is that no record or evidence exists for this supposed very important, high-profile census, despite the Romans being meticulous record keepers who did manage to keep records of other more routine censuses. Nothing, nada.

      • Greg G.

        Actually, Josephus discusses one in Antiquities of the Jews 17.13.5 and Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.1 when Herod the Great’s son, Archelaus, was being relieved of his role. Luke borrows a lot from Antiquities of the Jews. It was more of a tax census so nobody would have to pick some arbitrary distant relative’s home to be counted. But if one owned some property in another city, it might be wise to go there and claim it, lest it be confiscated. But more likely, people were traveling to avoid being counted which would reduce the tax burden where they lived or just to not be counted because of the plagues God sent when David took a census in 2 Samuel 24 (which said the Angel of the Lord made him do it) and 1 Chronicles 21 (which says Satan made him do it).

        • Brianna LaPoint

          I read about Josephus, the language used in his account was christianized. Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian.

        • Greg G.

          It is not that his account is Christianized, it is that Eusebius interpolated Christianese in two places. There is the whole passage of Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3, called the Testimonium Flavianum and another bit about somebody named James being killed (I do not rule out that it was the James who Paul mentioned a few places) but added that his brother was “the one who was called Christ”. I think Paul was being sarcastic when he called James “the Lord’s brother”.

  • Phil

    I like the way Jesus prays to god… himself. Either they are not one god or he suffers from multi-personality disorder. Imagine being a god and not knowing what part of you is doing. Dementia or not omnipotent.

    ” I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, ” What god is he praying to? The FSM? The god that created god?

    • kingdietrich

      Imaging being also your father who is also god. What does that make Jesus, God Jr? But he’s also the father–and the son. So confusing. How did anyone ever buy into this nonsense?

      • Greg G.

        It’s a mystery.

        • ildi

          inside an enigma.

        • Greg G.

          Wrapped in a paradox.

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        If God is Jesus’s father, and Jesus is also God. Then Jesus is God’s father. Jesus is his own grandpa

        • Jay Has

          Yes, major problems arise when trying to “change the story” and evolve it into something else. We see if everyday life when a lie must continue to be stretched to fit into all the unforeseen issues that arise.

    • Jesus said, “Father, remove this cup from me” (Luke 22:42). Why would he say that?? He is part of the Trinity that decided it.

      • Joe

        My father would tell me to remove my own bloody cup.

        • islandbrewer

          “And put it in the dishwasher! Stop leaving it around!”

  • Jay Has

    I must give it to Markus…..he must genuinely believe this stuff. His concern for the eternal fate of Internet strangers is impressive, no matter how irrational the concept is. The only caveat is, however, that if a person REALLY thought there was even a .00000000003435% chance of eternal suffering and punishment and could fully comprehend what that meant, they would either spend there entire life petrified unable to function or on their knees in a church; food and water are secondary!

    • Ignorant Amos

      Don’t be fooled. This is less about what happens to a bunch of lost atheist souls on the internet, than it is about Markus.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      But which church? How do you guess which omnicidal monster is the right one?

      • Jay Has

        You got me! But anything to avoid eternal punishment.

  • Brianna LaPoint

    The bible has made more criminally insane people than any other religion/

  • Jim Dailey

    For those of you interested in a scholarly refutation of Bob’s poor reading of the Bible, go see Dave Armstrong on Patheos Catholic.
    As far as I can tell, Bob is 0 for 5 in his “damning” claims, leaving me to advise him to possibly re-title his series “15 of the most…”

    Of course, if all his arguments are this lame, then he will have to do more title-editing I suppose.

    The thing that Dave points out is that these “contradictions” listed by Bob have been around for a loooong time, and dismantled so effectively that serious atheists have abandoned them.

    So, if you want to see “damning” going on, bring some of these old re-treads up with a serious scholar, and he will treat you like a “damned fool”.

    • Greg G.

      Was Jesus arrested, tried, sentenced, crucified, and buried before or after the passover meal? The Synoptics say after, John says before. What say you?

      • Jay Has

        Apparently Jesus was crucified twice? Maybe he came back to life and they killed him again?

        • Greg G.

          Never execute someone before a barbecue lest they come back from the dead.

        • You know how with Lays potato chips, you can’t eat just one? It’s like that.

        • Jay Has

          I guess if it’s that good, why stop with just one?

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve eaten Lays…and Lays are boggin’…Tayto cheese & onion are the best potato crisps in the world.

          I had a box shipped to me 8,000 miles away from home back in 1982.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tayto_(Northern_Ireland)

        • Susan

          Lays are boggin’

          Is that good?

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Greg G.
        • Ignorant Amos

          Revealed in a 2015 survey as being the number one Irish foodstuff that expats miss the most after moving abroad, Tayto crisps are a national institution. But many don’t realise they also have global significance, having been the world’s first ever seasoned potato chip. Here is a look at how the humble cheese and onion crisp became a national treasure and one of the top five biggest-selling brands in Ireland.

          https://theculturetrip.com/europe/ireland/articles/a-brief-history-of-tayto-irelands-beloved-crisp-brand/

          A national institution I’m talking about here…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNSIV_nDeMo

        • Sample1

          Chips are my favorite salty junk food. Cheese and onion flavored ones sound delicious. I’m always envious of other country’s snacks, especially Japan’s. Whenever I go next door to Canada I look for ketchup flavored chips which are surprisingly good.

          But while Lays are good, when I really can’t decide what chips to buy I always go for Ruffles (plain or cheddar/sour cream). They never disappoint!

          Mike

        • Susan

          Whenever I go next door to Canada I look for ketchup flavored chips which are surprisingly good.

          If you can get your hands on them, try Miss Vickie’s Sea Salt and Malt Vinegar.

          Try them one at a time. The first two or three might make you wonder why I suggested them.

          About four or five, you’ll probably be hooked

          If you’re not, we can still be friends.

          They’re evil.

        • Greg G.

          I have had those. They are pretty good. Too many vinegar flavored chips taste like artificial vinegar.

        • Susan

          Too many vinegar flavored flavoured chips (corrected for Canadian chip talk) taste like artificial vinegar.

          These ones do not. It takes the British to dowse perfectly fried fresh potatoes and oil and salt with malt vinegar.

          And an evil woman we shall call Miss Vickie to perfect it.

          I don’t buy them. They are that evil.

          They are pretty good.

          Pretty good?

          Heretic.

        • Greg G.

          With all of the flavored chips, on the off chance the vending machine at work has potato-chip flavored potato chips, I’ll get that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yeah, we have had Heinz Ketchup flavour here.

          Walkers do all sorts of extravagant flavours. From Marmite to Brussels Sprout. Including tomato sauce flavour. Pulled Pork to Steak Fajita, etc.

          The latest fad flavoured crisps on the market are Christmas Tree flavor by Iceland.

          I see Lays do ketchup flavoured crisps too.

        • Sample1

          Xmas tree flavor?

          Fir goodness sake…

          Mike

        • Ignorant Amos

          Fir goodness sake…

          Ha….a seen what ya did there fir feck sake…

          Yip…I shit you not.

          https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/shopping-deals/iceland-selling-christmas-tree-flavoured-13355906

    • Otto

      The only thing Dave has dismantled is his own credibility. He is a liar and a coward and you are his errand boy.

      • Greg G.

        It looks like Dave had four comments from three different people three days ago. Only one comment since then.

        • Otto

          I am not convinced ‘Matt’ isn’t Dave. Dave will not respond to any comment I make…same with Matt, and their views and derision are pretty much identical. I am thinking it is about 50/50.

        • Greg G.

          Matt has been around for four years with 1300 posts but only one follower. Even the Russians don’t like him.

        • Otto

          He responded to me know…and he is arguing that something immaterial can have substance…he is literally arguing for an oxymoron.

          I no longer think he is Dave…but he might as well be.

        • MR

          Oh, is Dave’s sock still finishing for hits? Cute.

        • Dave and a few sycophants have created a Catholic echo chamber. Sounds like heaven.

    • Joe

      And if you want somebody making things up a scholarly refutation of Dave Armstrong’s poor reading of the Bible, see a blog from a different sect of Christianity, who interpret the bible differently. God knows there are plenty of them.

    • Greg G.

      I read it. I see him quoting an apologist about Mark 16. He appeals to the added verses and that 16:7 says the angel commanded them. But the last sentence of the Gospel of Mark says, “They said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid.” THE END You can’t pretend that it says anything else. When the other gospels say they told, it is a contradiction.

      Dave is in Fantasy Land.

      • Joe

        When Jim says:

        …these “contradictions” listed by Bob have been around for a loooong time, and dismantled so effectively that serious atheists have abandoned them

        What he means is: Atheists have gotten tired of pointing out the most glaringly obvious contradictions, only to be told “no they aren’t'” by Christians. It’s one reason I don’t really like biblical contradiction discussions. The Christians response boils down to “nun-uh”.

        • Greg G.

          One of Dave’s refutations involved bolding an “if” in the next verse and a “but” in the one after that.

        • Susan

          One of Dave’s refutations involved bolding an “if” in the next verse and a “but” in the one after that.

          But.. but… look how scholarly he is.

        • Greg G.

          I notice that Jim Dailey has more posts to Bob’s blog than to Dave’s the past three days.

        • Well, you know what they say: Christians really are all atheists; they’re just too proud to admit they’ve been wrong all this time.

          I’m sure Jim’s a closet atheist. Show him the secret handshake next time you see him.

    • Dave had his chance, so I guess it’s up to you. Show us how these contradictions fail, big mouth.

    • Susan

      For those of you interested in a scholarly refutation of Bob’s poor reading of the Bible

      No, thank you.

      I can explain it again for you, but it never matters. You just pop in randomly (and have for years) to do your carnival barking. You seem to have zero interest in any discussion.

      1) Dave is not a scholar.
      2) No one is interested.
      3) Dave has developed a terrible reputation over the years for behaving badly in his discussions (i.e. he bans people willy nilly, he cherry picks their genuine attempts at discussion, edits his own comments after their responses and he bans them without justification, after which, he claims they were banned for being hostile (anti-theist and anti-catholic if they’re atheists, anti-catholic if they’re non-catholic christians, probably anti-Dave if they’re catholics who don’t agree with Dave. I made the third one up but it wouldn’t surprise me.)

      He calls the results “papers”.

      4) His apologetics are not special. It’s all the same old crap.

      5) He banned Bob and here you are at Bob’s blog carnival barking (again). That’s genuinely shitty behaviour. Persistent shitty behaviour.

      If you think Dave has made a great point, discuss it here.

      If you can’t, then why should anyone care whether you think his point is great? You’ve never been able to (or interested in) having a full discussion.

      So….

      No. Thank you.

      • Ignorant Amos

        Bang on the nose…oh how I dream of being a modicum that articulate.

        • Susan

          a modicum that articulate.

          If it weren’t for you, I wouldn’t have discovered the phrase “shower of gobshites”.

          One of the most beautiful phrases in the English (?) language IMO.

      • islandbrewer

        Yeah, the Courtier’s reply is horrible enough, but when it’s nothing but links to his own rambling unresponsive … uh … “arguments”, it reaches a new low.

    • Phil

      I must be a serious atheist. I seriously don’t believe and gods exist.

    • Rudy R

      And as far as I can tell, you have produced nothing to support your unfounded claims that “Bob is 0 for 5 in his “damning” claims”, Bob has been “dismantled so effectively that serious atheists have abandoned them” and that he would be treated like a “damned fool” by scholars.
      And no, I’m not going to Dave Armstrong’s blog…either produce evidence for your claim here or go home.

    • Jay Has

      So are you claiming that there are zero contradictions in the book?

    • Ignorant Amos

      A wonder would ya fuck away off with this cock sucking of Armstrong bullshit.

      Make an argument here if ya can. Dismantle one that Bob presents here if ya can…or go take yer heed fer a keek.

      Or better still, it’s about time Bob banhammered yer cretinous arsehole.

    • Doubting Thomas

      Oh yeah!!?? Well if you go read my blog over at http://www.youreatwit.com you’ll see that I effectively demolished Dave’s demolishing of Bob. Take that!!

    • Grimlock

      Jim. You do realize that your behavior on this blog boils down to drive-by commenting? You rarely, if ever, follow up on your initial remarks.

      Given this, why should anyone take any of your claims seriously?

  • Keith

    There are no contradictions contained within Holy Scripture, only apparent contradictions. Those who think there can be such a thing as private interpretation of Scripture (there is no private interpretation–see 2Peter 1:20) have made up their minds about the subject, but a good Bible scholar can explain them (the apparent contradictions). Only the Catholic Church (to whom the Bible belongs) can properly interpret Holy Scripture. (Non-Catholics have no Bible)

    • Greg G.

      Only the Catholic Church (to whom the Bible belongs) can properly interpret Holy Scripture.

      Great! I am very happy you stopped by, Keith. Maybe you can help clear up this apparent contradiction that BobS covers in the continuation of this series.

      Mark 14:12-16, Matthew 26:17-19, and Luke 22:7-12 tell us that it was the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread and the disciples prepared the Passover. (Matthew dropped the part about the Passover sacrifice but Mark and Luke got this wrong as the Passover is eaten at the very beginning of the first day of the Unleavened Bread.) Mark 14:17, Matthew 26:20, and Luke 22:14 tell us that the evening and the hour came for the Passover, and that Jesus joined the disciples at the table. Matthew 26:21 and Matthew 26:26 says that they were eating.

      In each of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus took Peter, James, and John up to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. Then Jesus was arrested. Therefore, Jesus ate the Passover meal before he was arrested, tried, sentenced, crucified, dead, and buried.

      In John 13:1, they have a meal but was it the Passover? John 13:29 tells us they had not begun to prepare for the Passover. In John 18:1-12, Jesus and his disciples crossed the brook Kidron to a garden where Jesus was arrested.

      In John 18:28 when Jesus was taken to Pilate’s place, the Jews did not want to enter because it would defile them and they would not be able to eat the Passover. John 19:14 says it was mid-day of the day of Preparation for the Passover.

      Therefore, according to John, Jesus was dead and buried before the Passover meal and could not have eaten it.

      It cannot be that the Passover meal was the night before and the Jews were delaying eating it. Passover leftovers are forbidden. Nothing can remain until morning.

      Exodus 12:8, 10 (NRSV)
      8 They shall eat the lamb that same night; they shall eat it roasted over the fire with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

      10 You shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn.

      Please straighten us out about this apparent contradiction.

    • Joe

      Only the Catholic Church (to whom the Bible belongs) can properly interpret Holy Scripture

      Have you mentioned this to an evangelical protestant recently? What was their response?

    • Ignorant Amos

      see 2Peter…

      But 2 Peter is a forgery…aka lie…so who cares what a lie says?

      Only the Catholic Church (to whom the Bible belongs)…

      Really? When did the Catholic Church take ownership of it? Who says?

      (Non-Catholics have no Bible)

      Ya fuckin’ Idiot… Get in the fuckin’ sack!