Please give a list of errors in the Bible [Archive]

praxis1966

29th October 2003, 07:37

Well, it really depends on what version of the Bible you have. Incidentally, I told this to one of these missionary types one time and he didn't like it very much. (Every summer tourist season the neighboring town of Panama City Beach is inundated with these campus crusader types. I used to work with a bunch of them.)

His response, after scoffing at my assertion, was there's only one truth. This seemed a little absurd to me, since the version of the Bible he had was based on King James and didn't even include the last verse of Genesis. (I often quote that verse to Christians who eat meat, since it can be interpreted as an argument for vegetarianism.) What I had forgotten was that the Bible I was citing was the Catholic version, based on older translations from Latin into the vulgate.

Anyhow, there are several other issues. This guy, even though he was a history major, had never heard of the first Ecunimical Council. I suspect this was because he attended Berry College in Georgia, a heavily fundamentalist Christian school (those types usually like to gloss over stuff like that, as well as blame all their problems on the Catholics, Jews and Muslims). It was commisioned by the Roman emporer Constantine. You see, Christians like to think that there was some miracle involving Constantine's conversion. Turns out he became a Christian in an effort to keep his empire in one piece. Since there was a pretty large upsurge in the popularity of Christianity at the time, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Problem was, nobody (not even Christians) was quite sure what Christianity was. This prompted his establishment of the council, at which the first Bible as a unified work was born.

There are a lot of differences and conflicts not only within a single Bible, but different Bibles. Whether you base your faith on the King James or NIV versions, or some translation of the older Hebrew, Attic Greek, Latin, or Aramaic versions will determine your outlook. They all can be quite different. As a matter of fact, there are currently a good many of the Jewish faith that believe the entire belief in Jesus as a savior is based on the mistranslation of one verse in the New Testament.

Furthermore, nobody in the Protestant demoninations seems to acknowledge the power that the Catholic church still wields over them. The Catholics denounce the Essene Gospels and do not include them in their canon. Seems like the Protestants just allowed the Church to do this for them with out giving the issue any thought. If you really want to test your classmates' and teacher's knowledge of Christianity, ask them about the Essene Gospels. Also, try asking them why they insist on reading a Bible which (in its current incarnation) was edited by a bunch of drunks and criminals, a.k.a. the counsel commisioned by King James.

The way I see it, it's best to interpret the Bible through a critical historian's perspective. Don't let your youth pastor, classmates or minister dictate to you what you believe. Do your own investagation, not only into the pages of the Bible but into the historical issues surrounding it. Remember, just because your minister went to seminary doesn't make him closer to God than you, just a little more well read.

Blackberry

29th October 2003, 08:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 04:49 PM
They told me to prove the Bible wrong. So now, I'm turning to you guys because you guys know more about this than I do. Thanks.
First of all, the whole book is dedicated to a non-existent character...

crazy comie

29th October 2003, 08:37

The bibel said all homosexuals will go into a lake of burning sulphur for iternaty.

Danton

29th October 2003, 13:04

The period of time it took Jesus to die on the cross varies wildy, Also if you are hanged you actually die of aspyhixsiation in a matter of hours not days.... That's all I got time for, more later...

suffianr

29th October 2003, 13:55

The period of time it took Jesus to die on the cross varies wildy, Also if you are hanged you actually die of aspyhixsiation in a matter of hours not days....

Yeah, I read something on this, a while back. He would have either bled to death (spear in the side) or died of exposure or asphyxiated.

Danton

29th October 2003, 16:22

The inconsistansies are many...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/don...istencies.shtml (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml)

Al Creed

29th October 2003, 17:21

Ask whomever quotes the bible to you, if one of the 10 Commandments says "Thou Shalt Not Kill," Why does "God" encourage slaughter, and even enduldge in it?

Ask them to explain why "God" allowed the Holy Roman Empire to fall to those who did not believe in a god

Ask them to explain why "God" condoned the Crusades

Ask them to explain why "God" allowed the Slave Trade to happen

Ask them to explain why "God" allowed 7 million devout followers of Judiasm to die systematically in the Halocaust

Ask them to explain "Lucy" and "Ororan," the earliest examples of Human evolution?

Ask them to explain why "God" hasn't flooded the world again, since it is so "ripe with moral degeneration and courruption"

Mazzen

29th October 2003, 17:38

If Mary was a virgin...then why did the church restore her virginity?

Al Creed

29th October 2003, 17:58

Actually, it has been said that the translation of Mary's title was fouled up, and it was intened to be the "Young Mary," not the "Virgin"

Pete

29th October 2003, 19:14

didn't even include the last verse of Genesis.

I have the Oxford Study Bible, and my last verse is something along the lines of: And then Joseph died and was embalmed in Egypt. What is your last line??

There is something odd about what they asked you to do. You cannot convince someone who presupposed the existance of Yhwh Elohim (LORD God) that the bible is incorrect. On the other hand, you cannot convince someone who does not presuppose the existance of Yhwh Elohim that the bible is correct. In this sense, during my discussion groups when we hit a biblical book it is also a divide between people talking from a literary point of view and those talking from a religious point of view. I am reading it as I would a novel, and there for none of the characters are any truer than those found in the Odyessy. Sure both my have historical basis, but that hardly means that it is all true and that it should hold an authority past being a good/bad book to read. The Christian people get offended when I ask why is god such a bastard in Exodus when he does not allow the Pharaoh to let the Hebrew go. The answer something like this: Well, God had to prove his power, and the Pharaoh deserved it for enslaving the Israelites. So I ask: but the story says that the Israelites where more powerful, why did they accept bondage? And then the prof interupts and expains that the Bible is like the Odysess, based on a historical memory from an oral tradtion that is not necassarly true, but reflects a time when something similar may have happened.

I hope that has some relevance, but my first point about what each individual presupposes is a killing point.

Marxist in Nebraska

29th October 2003, 19:26

I have heard that the Gospels present four entirely different (and often contradictory) portrayals of Jesus... I do not know--I have not read the Bible...

Sabocat

29th October 2003, 19:52

Rather than wasting a lot of precious time with your teacher on this...I would just refer him to the holy bible written in pig latin. :lol:

Somehow...in an odd way...it makes more sense to me this way.. :lol: :lol:

http://www.museumofconceptualart.com/ible-bay.html

EneME

29th October 2003, 20:08

A good book dedicated to show that the stories of the Bible are pure myth and folklore by oral tradition. "Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible As Folklore" by an old prof. of mine Alan Dundes......shows how there are so many different versions of the stories in the Bible....

Goldfinger

29th October 2003, 20:56

Many of the events discribed in the bible are described completely differently in the Quran.

Eastside Revolt

29th October 2003, 21:20

I'm sorry I didn't take the time to read the whole thread, I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet.

But why by any reasoning, would the entity that created the universe have created our dumbass species in its image?

Beccie

29th October 2003, 21:43

Instead of concluding that the bible is “wrong” because of the contradictions it contains maybe you could actually try and find out why these contradictions occur and what they implicate.

First of all I have to say that anyone who believes the bible is 100% accurate and the word of god is an idiot.

The bible is simply a collection of stories written by many different people over a long period of history… The creation stories were written by Jews who wanted to help their people understand how the world came to be… This is in a time that the people thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth… so of course the creation stories are inaccurate yet they had a purpose, which they served, to help people understand the world around them. They are wrong in terms of how we understand the world today but supported the worldview at the time they were written.

Inconsistencies between the gospels are largely due to the fact that the gospel writers were addressing different audiences and had their own theological agenda. For example the Jesus depicted in Luke’s gospel as often suffering as Luke’s community, gentile Christians, were suffering at the hands of the Jews and the Romans. Luke wanted to assure his audience that suffering was a necessary part of human life that one had to accept to be with Jesus after they die. The other three gospel writers do not hold this view and hence contradictions arise… The last words of Jesus in each of the Gospels are different, revealing the particular views the writers had on Jesus as the Messiah and his mission.

Well, it says that you should accept a person for what he/she is... It also says homosexuality is a sin, a "sickness" that you are so to say born with...
Acceptance?

The thing is that the rule on homosexuality was stated in the old Testament… The Jews believed that to be truly faithful they must follow these rules… If they didn’t they were deemed unholy and became an outcast in Jewish society. Some people believed that these rules created division in society and legitimised a hierarchy that oppressed the “outcasts” of society… Then the New Testament was written… It completely overturned the old views on how to be faithful.. Instead of strictly following these rules Jesus preached love and forgiveness for all, he often broke the old Jewish rules to prove that they were dehumanising. Therefore that contradiction you have noted is not a valid one, it does not prove the bible “wrong”. Rather that the idea of what it meant to be faithful has changed over time.

I apologise for my rantings but I am sick of people trying to prove the bible “right” or “wrong”…. The bible is neither right or wrong… it is a collection of works written in and suited to a particular socio-cultural context and it should be read that way… People should really learn about they people who wrote the bible and why and the history behind it before they judge it or conclude that it is the word of god.

marxstudent

29th October 2003, 23:46

Thanks, everyone. I asked about purgatory and how Catholics can preach something totally different from Protestants. Protestants will give verses to defend themselves and so will Catholics. I never got a real answer out of this. It makes me frustrated because we'll talk about a certain question for like 2 or 3 days and I don't feel like I get a real answer out of it. I also got a lot of real great questions from Ryen and I wrote them out and gave them to my teacher. He thought they were so good that he printed them out and handed them out to my classmates. We've been talking about them for about a week and a half now.

Palmares

30th October 2003, 00:12

You should look up some stuff about the Synoptic Gospels, to contrast them to each other (Mark, Matthew, Luke), and then to the Gospel of John. I've been studying this stuff in my Studies in Religion class, and it was hella boring because I had to read this four Gospels so many times... The fundamentals I can remember are that there is no proof who actually wrote each Gospel (no self-authorship), ... this is so boring thinking about this. The geographical and chronological orders of these four Gospels are different, though similar in areas (except John, which is not a 'Synoptic' Gospel).

There is a good book on this, by John Drane... 'Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels' I think.

Other stuff you can say are about what Christians (as opposed to Jews) are to take from the Old Testament, and what not to take.

From that, take some of the dodgy verses from the Old Testament and ask if they are relevant (stuff from Leviticus, Exodus, and whatever).

Good luck dude.

Blackberry

30th October 2003, 01:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 05:21 AM

Ask them to explain why "God" hasn't flooded the world again, since it is so "ripe with moral degeneration and courruption"
Actually, "God" promised to Noah that he would never flood the world again. :D

Too bad. There are so many non-believers these days that need a good flooding.

praxis1966

30th October 2003, 01:49

I think a few people have already touched on these issues, but I'd thought I might flesh them out with a little more detail.

Cthenthar
Leviticus is good example as to how the rules of conduct according to the Old Testament are so exceedingly ludicrous. According to it, all the males posting here who cut their hair (especially around the temples) should be subject to public stoning. It also includes instructions on how to properly sacrifice livestock at the community altar (eg upon which side to scatter the blood). Furthermore, it has a lot of weird rules about when women are "clean" enough to attend Sabbath (barred the week before, during, and after menstruation). These rules only allow women to attend one week a month.

Secondly, you're right. There is no proof that any of the apostles ever personally wrote any of the Gospels. I just watched a two hour documentary on the History Channel the other day about the subject. The Biblical historians they interviewed also went so far as to say that whoever authored the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John all plajurized one another. (They sighted quite a lot of verses, I just can't think of them off the top of my head.)

As far as inconsistancies go, I think this is due in large part that none of them were written at the same time. Sometimes they were written years, if not decades, apart and translated by scribes who may or may not have fully understood the original language.

The point? There's entirely too many questions and doubt surrounding the origins of the Bible for anyone with a critical mind and a sense of history to take seriously as fact. If anything, it should be used for the purposes of moral allegorical reference.

P.S. The story of Moses' birth was complete crap. Early Jewish writers/storytellers ripped it of from the birth myth of King Nebachudnezzar (sp) who lived and died long before Moses was an itch in his daddy's pants.

Beccie

30th October 2003, 02:04

The Biblical historians they interviewed also went so far as to say that whoever authored the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John all plajurized one another

Most biblical scholars agree that Mark was the first gospel written (about 60 years after Jesus' death) and that both Matthew and Luke have used Marks gospel as a major source to their own gospels. They also agree that the authors did not know Jesus but depended heavily on second hand information.

Pete

30th October 2003, 02:42

The Old Testament was redacted by atleast three sources. In the beginning God is all powerful. But through Exodus to Deut (where I am at right now in my studies) he is one of many, and is jealous of the cults all the other gods have established. He is but one of many, and a bastard at that. Killing for glory.

Le LibÃ©rer

30th October 2003, 03:19

Jeazzz thats a good one. DO you need references to back it up? Seems like you would. And if you do, go borrow a "scoffield" reference bible from the library. Every verse is referenced to like subject verses in the old and new testements.

I think the biggest mistake in the Bible would be, In the new testement they keep speaking of, the resurrection. The actual word used would be reincarnation.

Funny thing about Christianity is, you have to take the whole Bible as the truth or none of it. I was taught the Bible is the literal word of God. I wish I was ignorant to beleive that statement. Guess I'm just bound to Hell! :ph34r: *in my best sarcastic winey voice* The devil made me do it! lol

Which brings me to a funny story. My social security number ends in 666. My devout Christian mother freaked! When she called the Social Security Office, they laughed at her when she tried to have it changed! LOL!

30th October 2003, 03:20

Ask them to explain concept of the trinity.

Question if Christianity is actually monolithic.

Palmares

30th October 2003, 03:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 01:04 PM
The Biblical historians they interviewed also went so far as to say that whoever authored the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John all plajurized one another

Most biblical scholars agree that Mark was the first gospel written (about 60 years after Jesus' death) and that both Matthew and Luke have used Marks gospel as a major source to their own gospels. They also agree that the authors did not know Jesus but depended heavily on second hand information.
It is correct that most accept that Mark was first (AD 60-70), and both Matthew and Luke were next (AD 80-90?) and John was last. Both Mark and Luke used Mark as a major sources (around 50% of each is tantamount to Mark), and both also have another major common source, the hypothetical 'Q' (I think that's it's name). Then there is also some information unique to each. John on the other hand is very much different to the others, as it differs both chronologically and geographically (as I said before). Other differences include the style in which they were written; Mark and Luke for the Gentiles (non-Jewish Christians), Matthew for the Jews, and John for the Romans/Latin speakers.

In regards to the dodgy stuff in the Old Testicle... Testament, I can remember some verses (not the verses, but their meanings); if you have an irregular excretion (not the right word...) of semen, you must sacrifice two doves (in Leviticus); errr.... mental block...

I'll get back to you guys later... :blink:

Elect Marx

30th October 2003, 05:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 02:04 PM
The period of time it took Jesus to die on the cross varies wildy, Also if you are hanged you actually die of aspyhixsiation in a matter of hours not days.... That's all I got time for, more later...
I have heard that many historians and scientist think it would take around 6 hours to die like this. He wasn't hanged exactly. The process of crusifiction is, as I know it, a slow death by aspyhixsiation as your body weakens through lack of nurishment, exposure and your own weight suffocates you. Jesus was speared after he died, as I heard it (he told me ;)). Many revolutionary figures like Jesus were delt with by this method, they were nailed to crosses and such, that had to suck.

redstar2000

30th October 2003, 15:00

There are two kinds of "wrongness" in the Bible.

The first kind consists of errors of fact...places where the Bible contradicts known historical or scientific knowledge.

This is generally "excused" by the fact that the various writers, editors, compilers, copyists, etc. were not "historians" or "scientists" in the modern sense and therefore can't be legitimately held to modern standards of accuracy.

The second type of "wrongness" is much more serious. The moral code of the Bible is, in most respects, evil by modern standards.

Some "literal Christian" who advocated slavery on the basis of Biblical quotations would be widely denounced all over the world...even by most other Christians. But the quotes are there in black and white.

Christians try to "soft-pedal" the "embarrassing stuff" by not mentioning it or by saying, if pressed, that those are not really moral teachings...just cultural artifacts of the time.

Yet it is interesting to note that Christians will rigorously defend those "cultural artifacts" to the last possible moment...giving way only when it becomes impossible to defend those "words of God" any longer.

When the bill to abolish the laws against witchcraft was laid before the English parliament (1821?)...only the clergy defended the old laws to the bitter end.

So it is in our own day. Whenever the repeal of some reactionary or repressive law is proposed--particularly relating to "morals"--the various brands of Christianity will be found defending the old law to the bitter end. At this moment in Italy, for example, they are finally beginning to remove the crucifixes from public schools...and the church is screaming like a stuck pig.

What is really "wrong" about the Bible is what its defenders claim as its strength: its moral code.

The bottom line is that it is an evil book.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Invader Zim

30th October 2003, 15:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 05:00 PM
There are two kinds of "wrongness" in the Bible.

The first kind consists of errors of fact...places where the Bible contradicts known historical or scientific knowledge.

This is generally "excused" by the fact that the various writers, editors, compilers, copyists, etc. were not "historians" or "scientists" in the modern sense and therefore can't be legitimately held to modern standards of accuracy.

The second type of "wrongness" is much more serious. The moral code of the Bible is, in most respects, evil by modern standards.

Some "literal Christian" who advocated slavery on the basis of Biblical quotations would be widely denounced all over the world...even by most other Christians. But the quotes are there in black and white.

Christians try to "soft-pedal" the "embarrassing stuff" by not mentioning it or by saying, if pressed, that those are not really moral teachings...just cultural artifacts of the time.

Yet it is interesting to note that Christians will rigorously defend those "cultural artifacts" to the last possible moment...giving way only when it becomes impossible to defend those "words of God" any longer.

When the bill to abolish the laws against witchcraft was laid before the English parliament (1821?)...only the clergy defended the old laws to the bitter end.

So it is in our own day. Whenever the repeal of some reactionary or repressive law is proposed--particularly relating to "morals"--the various brands of Christianity will be found defending the old law to the bitter end. At this moment in Italy, for example, they are finally beginning to remove the crucifixes from public schools...and the church is screaming like a stuck pig.

What is really "wrong" about the Bible is what its defenders claim as its strength: its moral code.

The bottom line is that it is an evil book.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Yes, I found an interesting artical on the Blasphamy act: -

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-offic...of/95/95w16.htm (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldrelof/95/95w16.htm)

"This submission is in response to the challenge from Lord Avebury expressed in his "Religious Offences Bill" which has in its provisions the abolition of the Common Law offence of blasphemy, and the introduction of religious hatred laws. As a result, the House of Lords has set up a "Select Committee on Religious Offences." The Committee is inviting short submissions, to consider two main issues:

1. Should existing religious offences (notably blasphemy) be amended or abolished?

2. Should a new offence of incitement to religious hatred be created and, if so, how should the offence be defined?

In short, our answers to these questions are:

1. No! We do not agree that the blessed name of our God and Redeemer should be publicly blasphemed, our church services should be disrupted by militant anti-Christian agitators, or that any amendment is either logically possible or necessary, and

2. No! We do not believe the "religious hatred" provisions thrown out of the Terrorism Bill by Parliament are a proper substitute, or will do any good at all."

Bible Bangers Blatant Bullshit

I like that B.B.B.B.

Marxist in Nebraska

30th October 2003, 17:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 10:00 AM
The first kind consists of errors of fact...places where the Bible contradicts known historical or scientific knowledge.

This is generally "excused" by the fact that the various writers, editors, compilers, copyists, etc. were not "historians" or "scientists" in the modern sense and therefore can't be legitimately held to modern standards of accuracy.

[...]Some "literal Christian" who advocated slavery on the basis of Biblical quotations would be widely denounced all over the world...even by most other Christians. But the quotes are there in black and white.

Christians try to "soft-pedal" the "embarrassing stuff" by not mentioning it or by saying, if pressed, that those are not really moral teachings...just cultural artifacts of the time.

Yet it is interesting to note that Christians will rigorously defend those "cultural artifacts" to the last possible moment...giving way only when it becomes impossible to defend those "words of God" any longer.

[...]So it is in our own day. Whenever the repeal of some reactionary or repressive law is proposed--particularly relating to "morals"--the various brands of Christianity will be found defending the old law to the bitter end. At this moment in Italy, for example, they are finally beginning to remove the crucifixes from public schools...and the church is screaming like a stuck pig.
Good post, rs2k...

I resent the "Bible is infallible" argument for exactly the reasons you give. We cannot even tell who the authors are for at least part of the Bible, let alone know if they were credible. One of the gospels about Jesus was written by someone who never even met Jesus. An "infallible" work is just a 2000 year old work of gossip!

Or, as I heard someone say recently: The Bible was written by guys having visions of God. What happens to people who have "visions" today? We look them into mental institutions! But we treat the "visions" of the Biblical authors simply because they are old!

The "morality" of the Bible is suspect, as you say. Homosexuality is to punished by death. Slavery is acceptable. But it is not all bad... I have seen the "Jesus as a communist" quotes assembled in a few places, and it often takes a page or two to list them all. The moral guidelines of the Bible are not to trusted blindly, nor are they to be absolutely rejected.

Elect Marx

30th October 2003, 19:18

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 30 2003, 06:17 PM
The moral guidelines of the Bible are not to trusted blindly, nor are they to be absolutely rejected.
I agree very strongly with this. I am against dogmatism, be it for or against religious matters. While there are disturbing or incorect sections of much religious text, there are also many positive messages and historical references from many different cultures. Though there is a great limitation in the text, because of who has writen it, who has translated and who has chosen what information to compile.

I like one part of the bible in one of the books not often included, in it Jesus asks, can you not judge for yourself what is right?

Many religious groups today distort all aspects of religion and are tools of the ruling class. The very structure of organized religion has come about through the development of ruling classes. Once Christianity was a revolutionary sect (small underground religion) but now its origins are widely abandoned. I am filled with rage by those who would simply use their religion as a justification for their actions. As I see it, if at all, religion should be derived from actions, not actions derived from religion.

I have largely abandoned my bible recently, in favor of my career and political activities but when I was reading it last, I found interesting cultural parallels and I liked to process the conflit that the topics brought to mind. No matter what the authors of the bible had in mind, good or bad, it is often thought provoking and gives you some historical referance (isn't always acurate). The point I see is to challange the text and be more resolved because you understand the subject matter, to challange or support religious or nonreligious ides. To the people here that have said the bible is a waste of time, I would question if they have taken a critical look at ithe material and if they are simply rejecting it in an attemt to do away with religious relics. To give a parallel example: if you want to stop racism or some other form of bigotry, you must understand the roots of the problem, so if you want to understand the effects of institutionalized religion on the minds of people, you must be able to explian the inconsistancies in their rational. This takes a cohesive effort to understand both the materials and the conection to the organizations that use them. Being brought up in a religious environment by hypocrites, I would say I have had a good opportunity to challange and understand these issues.

My 300th post!!!

Dr. Rosenpenis

30th October 2003, 20:53

Bring this up, it always spaks an excelent debate!:
11:1 Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. 11:2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. 11:5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. 11:6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: 11:9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: 11:10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11:11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord. 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God. 11:13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
It can be found in I Corinthians 11:1

Xvall

30th October 2003, 20:58

Ask your teacher if god is all-powerful. If he says yes (He will) ask him if god is capable of creating something he can not destroy.

Marxist in Nebraska

30th October 2003, 21:53

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 30 2003, 02:18 PM
Many religious groups today distort all aspects of religion and are tools of the ruling class. The very structure of organized religion has come about through the development of ruling classes. Once Christianity was a revolutionary sect (small underground religion) but now its origins are widely abandoned. [...]

[...] To the people here that have said the bible is a waste of time, I would question if they have taken a critical look at ithe material and if they are simply rejecting it in an attemt to do away with religious relics. [...] if you want to understand the effects of institutionalized religion on the minds of people, you must be able to explian the inconsistancies in their rational.
Organized religion has always been a preferred tool of ruling class oppression. Comrade, would you explain in depth how "the very structure of organized religion" is related to the "development of ruling class[es]."

Do you believe that the original promise of Jesus's teachings can ever be reclaimed? How would we take Christianity back, take it away from the Jerry Falwells and George Bushs of the world?

"As I see it, if at all, religion should be derived from actions, not actions derived from religion."

Great line. I agree.

Would you care to go through some of the "cultural parallels" you mentioned? It probably deserves a new thread...

I would advise some of the comrades here on che-lives to pay close attention to the last paragraph I quote above.

Congratulations on your 300th post, comrade...

Sub-comandante Andres... I like the sound of that...

Jesus Christ

30th October 2003, 23:08

http://revjim.freeshell.org/piss.html

Palmares

30th October 2003, 23:54

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 31 2003, 07:58 AM
Ask your teacher if god is all-powerful. If he says yes (He will) ask him if god is capable of creating something he can not destroy.
According to the Bible, God isn't actually omnipotent.

The Bible mentions maybe 6 or 7 things he cannot do. They are pretty soppy things though. They (Christians) use these verses to 'counter' the famous question by modern scientists of whether God could create a rock that even he cannot lift.

Some of the things 'He' cannot do are:

*He cannot remember your sins once He has forgiven them
*He cannot commit injustice
*He cannot stop loving you
*Blah blah blah

You get the picture.

I know Muslims believe Allah is omnipotent though, but I'm not sure about Jews.

Xvall

31st October 2003, 00:48

Good point; however through personal experience most religious people I've dealt with view god as all-powerful.

Dr. Rosenpenis

31st October 2003, 01:40

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 30 2003, 04:58 PM
Ask your teacher if god is all-powerful. If he says yes (He will) ask him if god is capable of creating something he can not destroy.
I've heard this argument hundreds of times directed at Christians. I've never heard a response, however.
What have christians said when confronted with this paradox? Just curious.

Soviet power supreme

31st October 2003, 16:57

When you die your soul gets to heaven or hell but does your soul have 5 senses?Can you feel the flames in hell or can you hear the angels playing their harps in heaven?

Xvall

31st October 2003, 20:15

A good point SPS. Make sure that if you bring this up, you remind them that 'the flesh can not enter heaven'; so there should be no 'hearing' or 'seeing' of anything there.

marxstudent

31st October 2003, 23:28

These are all good things to ask about but I'm looking more for apologetics material. Anyone got anything more specifically into that?

Dr. Rosenpenis

1st November 2003, 02:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 07:28 PM
These are all good things to ask about but I'm looking more for apologetics material. Anyone got anything more specifically into that?
Do you mean something that offers an excuse or an apology?! What? I don't understand what you're looking for, comrade. Try ther passage I gave you from I Corinthians chapter 11.

marxstudent

1st November 2003, 03:49

I will but yeah I'd like specific verses and such. I think the best way to determining if there is a God or not (in Christian perspectives) matters more on apologetics.

Pete

1st November 2003, 18:36

In Exodus and Genesis, and even Deuternomy, God is not all powerful or all encompassing. In actuality there are many gods, adn Yhwh is but one of them, a very jealous god that must prove him self or be ran down by the others.

187

5th November 2003, 00:58

Soviet power supreme

5th November 2003, 14:31

Exodus 20
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me"

He's such a super guy.

He surely is.I remember a story from bible.The king killed one his general ,then he fucked the general's wife and when the wife gave birth a bastard child, who did god punish?Thats right the child.

Purple

6th November 2003, 07:01

everything about christianity's version of hell is bullshitty... i prefer satanism more then christianity... no heaven, no hell, no gods, just here and now...

cubist

7th November 2003, 20:46

everything about christianity's version of hell is bullshitty... i prefer satanism more then christianity... no heaven, no hell, no gods, just here and now...

--------------------

satanism and whats so great about sir anton lavey? he made it all up least the bible isn't an anti product of something just to make the guy famous

Elect Marx

9th November 2003, 20:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 09:46 PM
everything about christianity's version of hell is bullshitty... i prefer satanism more then christianity... no heaven, no hell, no gods, just here and now...

--------------------

satanism and whats so great about sir anton lavey? he made it all up least the bible isn't an anti product of something just to make the guy famous
I agree, I can't see what is so great about "satanism," is just seems like a sensationalist cult. From what I've seen on it, it seems to be very concerned with heirchy and deiviating from organised religion. I want to know what is so special or even valuable in Satanism.

Hawker

10th November 2003, 00:17

I think that the bible is just a collection of myth and legends just like the Greek Pantheon of Gods.

There's one thing in the bible that started to put doubt in me.It's when Jesus was alive all the records that was kept through is the age of 13 to 20 was gone.So he went from 13 to 20, 13 to 20 what the hell happened to the other 7 years?

I think that the Legend of Jesus was an incomplete story and the whole Christianity cult was started by 12 people known as the apostles who were disatisfied with Judism and wanted people to follow their cult so they made up a story about the Messiah already coming and dying for the people of the world to lure many followers.

Nic8

12th November 2003, 12:33

From a logical perpective, it should be up to the bible people to prove that the bible is true. It is much easier to prove a positive then a negative. One could even say that a negative can not be proven at all. Like, if I make a statement, it isn't right because there is no proof that it is wrong. It reminds me of my old logic textbook. There's this guy in a museum setting up all the dinasor bones and making them dance. This proffesor dude with a lab coat is looking at home like he's pissed. The guy's like "But there's no proof that they didn't dance!" Obviously, is should be up to the guy to prove that they did dance and not the professor dude to prove that they didn't. I think the logical problem is called burden of proof. The burden of proof has to be put on the positive side, not the negative side. Galileo didn't say gravity exists and then people believed him because they didn't have proof that it didn't exist. People believed him because he had proof that it did exist.

And most christians will tell you that god is all-powerfull, even if the bible sais so or not. They also claim that god is all-knowing and all-good. I don't know if the bible states any of these things, I've hardly read it. But most christians, catholics and protestants, tell me so. So god is all-powerfull, all-knowing and all-good, according to most christians I've talked to. If this is true, then evil should not exist, yet most christians claim it does. If got is all-powerfull, he has the power to stop evil. If god is all-good, he wants to stop evil. If god is all-knowing, he knows about evil. So god can not be all three of these things. He either doesn't have the power to stop it, doesn't want to stop it or doesn't know about it. Most christians end up contradicting themselves with this issue. And if they claim that god gave us free will, as most of them do, then he isn't all powerfull.

truthaddict11

12th November 2003, 13:01

Satanism has anything to do with sacrifices or murder despite what the media wants you to believe. They dont believe in god or satan. They basicly believe in self indulgence, Sex Drugs ect.

marxstudent

13th November 2003, 00:14

Thanks, everyone. Still, the responses seem to be all opinionated. I need straight on verses- not theories.

For example... Protestants say to get into heaven all you need is "faith" (dunno the exact verses myself) whereas Catholics and Orthodox say it's about works (james 2:26). They contradict each other.

I learned everything's on interpretation of the Bible so nothing can really be proven right or wrong.

Sheep

13th November 2003, 01:16

i dont know if this was said, but... in the bible, in several places, it refers to the four corners of the earth. when you read it in this time period it seems like a saying, but you have to take into account that back when this thing was written it was a common misconception that the earth was flat. this misconception carried over to the author(s) of the bible. one of my favorite websites was www.biblebabble.com but the webmaster has long since paid his dues and its no more. such a shame.

Hawker

14th November 2003, 05:01

Oh and Mary wasn't a virgin.If you look at Mary and Joseph you have to say to yourself "please would a couple stay together that long without getting down?"

suffianr

16th November 2003, 12:09

Was Chirst Crucified? - A debate (http://answering-islam.org/Debates/Deedat_McDowell.html)

Here are two established perspectives from Christianity and Islam. Have fun.

Pete

17th November 2003, 04:34

Here is a good way to look at the bible: The Brick Testament (http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament/) Hope it helps.

cubist

17th November 2003, 17:14

Hawker Posted on Nov 14 2003, 06:01 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and Mary wasn't a virgin.If you look at Mary and Joseph you have to say to yourself "please would a couple stay together that long without getting down?"

don't place your weakness's on other people just becuase you couldn't do it! IF god exists then that did actually happen, the integrity of the bible is questionable but by, ethics and moral values and through its self contradiction and the evidence presented for evolution and science, not becuase the human race is too weak to forfill what it claims.

what do people actually think of christianity, do you find it a right wing way of population control, or do you look deeper into the theology (not the church and its hierachical structure just the plain text) and practices and see its similar structure to that of a socialists atitude to life,