How many contradictions in your belief system before you'd leave it?

There are no contradictions in the Bible. Only gaps in understanding.

 

One contradiction invalidates dogma.
But a belief system that doesn't require absolute knowledge, that accepts "as far as we know" and when we know better allows the new knowledge to be incorporated can withstand anything.

 

If what I believed contradicted the Bible, I would give up my beliefs immediately because the Bible is absolutely correct I my religion must not actually be basd upon what sripture says.

My Reading Comprehension must have been very low, under those circumstances, wherein I did not catch the contradiction between scripture and what my religion was teaching.

 

Not at all.
The Bible is summed in one Word, Truth.

Truth is our Lord and savior.
The Bible merely explains that Reality is the ONLY god, almighty here in life with the power of death over us.
There is nothing in the Bibe which is metaphorical, but a lot of stuff which uses analogy to explain things which until now, men could not grasp more directly.

The Bible is like the Chemistry teacher who tells you what you can handle for the moment, and then, later in the cpurse, explains some things are more complicated.
The Bible is like a teaching tool which talks to each past generation at the level of competence it can handle.


When you were a child, you thought as a child,...

 

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

Christ is a reference to ancient of ancient genetically reproduced Unconscious mind that is constantly reborn again into the world with every new child that exits the womb.
The solitary Unconscious mond adds to and replaces those of the dying generation before its birth.

The Collective Unconscious mind is the silent observant Third Eye which shepherds over us, as a species, maintaining some few Personal Relayionships with people pf good conscience and communitarian instincts.


Read the latest Science that explains all this:



Over the past two decades of neurological research, it has become increasingly clear that the way we experience the world--our perception, behavior, memory, and social judgment--is largely driven by the mind's subliminal processes and not by the conscious ones, as we have long believed. As in the bestselling The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, Leonard Mlodinow employs his signature concise, accessible explanations of the most obscure scientific subjects to unravel the complexities of the subliminal mind. In the process he shows the many ways it influences how we misperceive our relationships with family, friends, and business associates; how we misunderstand the reasons for our investment decisions; and how we misremember important events--along the way, changing our view of ourselves and the world around us.

 

So taking the bible as inerrant today would be childish!
We agree.

 

There might not be anything internally contradictory in the bible, depending on how one
chooses to jolly it along.

It is full of things that are not true or accurate.

 

If there are no contradictions, then it is all true.

 

Because he and so many others in this forum are constantly posting threads seeking help in justifying their insecure "beliefs".

How many thread topics involve something derogatory about Christianity?
And the authors of 100% of those threads is about 4 different people.

This forum is nothing but a circle jerk of non-believers.... wanting to high five other non-believers.

 

Do you understand what I mean by "internal contradictions"?

Example: say, in a novel a character is described as being in his 40's, tall and blonde.
Later, he is in his 20s and japanese.

Now, being a novel, none of it is true; but if he stayed tall and blonde, it would be internally consistent.

With two different accounts of genesis, the bible is not internally consistent.
Such testimony in court would result in trouble for the witness, changing the story and all.
"Now which is it..." we hear the prosecutor saying.

There are places where the bible account simply is not true, if read literally. (world wide flood)

Accuracy varies; my q for you is,
how much accuracy is needed for something to be "true"?

50%? 99%? 3% "

 

Or for people to offer insults from behind the safety of their computer and avoiding naming anyone in particular.

As for derogatating xtianity, you guys tend to manage well on your own.

I dont have anything against xtianity. Some of its self-styled followers, their weird and often ugly ideas are a topic for debate.

 

Lol... I would be "unsafe" if I named names ? I'm so scared!..... ffs, that's ludicrous.
If I named names the post would be removed, as we all know.

Look at the first couple pages, the names are pretty consistent.
Start with all the threads that being with "What's wrong with.... (fill in nickname for Christians here)?"
Which seems to be the most overused threat title on the 'net. (no offense to yours).

"Derogating"

I don't care if you do or not.

 

You're both wrong.
You are looking for "denigrating".
Kind of like all the sweeping attack threads on atheists we see, spearheaded by Blackrooks endless offerings.
What's the difference?

 

I liked derogatating. I know its not the actual word.

But why do you like to do it?

- - - Updated - - -

The difference is that I knew it was a made up word when I made it up.

 

I hear you! He took your bait!

 

No, I definitely meant derogating. Which is why I typed it.

Yeah, his 1 to the others' 20 is some stiff competition.

But no difference.

- - - Updated - - -

Save face. Get those high fives.

You're welcome for the schooling.

 

only took one for me and it was goodbye religion hello reality/normalcy

 

It wasnt bait as such, but he either didnt know why I used that ignorant looking spelling,
or just feels that any chance to try to play gotcha should be jumped on.

Its probably both, as well as that it was a way to distract from the point ( like any good would- be spellin' nazi) that our fundies do all the heavy liftin' of derogitatin' their own selfs, and dont need no help.

 

Seems you were.

 

Its childish to try and attack the Bible while ignoring everything that can and has been said in its defense.

What I see is a pretense at misunderstanding the Bible allows you to attack what it actually says so you can demean the argument it makes, that Truth is the son of the unfolding Reality which sires it in its wake.

In your pursuit to defend against what the Bible argues, you pretend that scripture says stuff that is contradictory, unscientific, or just wrong when you know I have shown it can be understood to the contrary, as uncanny correct.

- - - Updated - - -

i bet the problem was your poor reading comprehension.

 

If you feel that attempting to play "gotcha" is entirely worthy of you, you may well be right.

 

All I did was give you the correct way of spelling a word, and I said nothing about it.

You going on about it as if it wasn't only one word of my entire comment, and turning it into some "gotcha" moment, is all on you.

Follow everything with Pee Wee Herman's "I meant to do that!".... and you'll never lose your eFriends' high fives.

 

as well as that it was a way to distract from the point ( like any good would- be spellin' nazi) that our fundies do all the heavy liftin' of derogitatin' their own selfs, and dont need no help

 

Dual accounts are the result of sandwiching stories together after the Northern Kingdom fell to the Assyrians. In some cases, the various editors/compilers confronting two sources decided neither to meld them together nor eliminate either one. Thus one version has Noah hosting one pair of each species, while another account says seven pairs. One account says Saul committed suicide, whereas another says an Amelekite was prompted to do the deed.

Genesis is not the only area where the Bible is sequentially compromised. There were a lot of fingers in the pie: the Jhwist/Yahwist, the Elohist, and various redactors and editors (priests and scribes). Various passages have been moved around piecemeal. Spans of individual contributions have been detected in the styles of the authors. For example, the Elohist uses the term "God Almighty", whereas the Jhwist prefers "Lord God" (Law God). In other places it's "an Angel of the Lord."

The inconsistencies, contradictions, and inaccuracies are irrelevant to the meanings and messages in the esoteric contents.

Likewise the many contradictions are deliberate if not occasionally the product of introduced error. They are a blind that discourages access to knowledge by those who seek shortcuts to power and dominance in their malicious narrow scope of worldly perception.

Books describe the power that can be gained as thaumaturgic, whatever that means. It can be very dangerous and harmful in the wrong hands. Black magic is an "unauthorized" use of that power. Therefore it must be real. Proper attainment of such capacity also involves physical changes akin to the phenomenon of kundalini.

Indeed, it can be shallow or worthless without the underlying theme. The flood probably represents major earth changes that occur in the progression from one cycle to another. The wrathfulness of the deity is likely just part of the stage props. The ark represents carry-over and renewal across dynamic thresholds.