Now the Bible contradicting itself might be normal as it was apparently a bunch of writings put together, by many authors..

Heaven is described as a place of timeless harmony, where the moon and sun are no longer needed, with a magical fruit tree that bears fruit every month.

Im almost certain i will be adding more passages to this, as i was really left shaking my head last night.

What passages are you referring to?

Revelation 21 and 22

I could be mistaken but i believe there are more passages as well.

I think these passage are talking about heaven as a restored Eden type of deal.

The biggest contradiction is between the Old Testament vs. the New Testament themselves.

Old Testament God (OTG) sent a bear to kill the 40 children that made fun of the prophet Elisha's baldness.

OTG allowed Elijah to personally slaughter 400 priests of another religion simply for losing a contest that involved lighting up a water soaked piece of wood.

OTG killed hundreds of thousands of innocent firstborns in Egypt. Killed thousands in Sodom and Gomorah. Allowed Joshua to butcher hundreds of thousands of the current occupiers of the Promised Land. Ordered King David to kill hundreds of thousands.

On the other hand, Jesus Christ of New Testament fame only talked about turning the other cheek, paying Rome what belongs to Rome, forgiving many sinners, being a good Samaritan, etc.

This is the biggest contradiction of all.

OTG was the true OG

Yes, you are right, i think..and i believe the point of the New Testament was to tell everyone to chill.

And that the 10 commandment laws of the OT will not go away.. but.. Jesus claimed the people of his time were all hypocrites anyway... unless of course they acknowledged that God existed inside him and in everyone.

“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.....https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5

Agreed. I'm glad this thread was created because I debated doing so but fig'd there was prbly a past one that just needed bumped and I hadn't got around to checking.

Here's my post to Aaron, which if he reads this thread I'd like him to expound on (or anyone else for that matter)

This reads as they got the OT wrong and once we understood God more clearly the narrative changed. Obviously that's a fundamental contradiction in terms of the validity of the OT imo

In what way does it mean that someone got something "wrong"? In a book, you would get the character "wrong" if you only read the first couple chapters of a book and assumed that that was the entirety of the character.

What's obvious?

If the character murders someone or endorses murder in the first few chapters and is professing non-violence by the end of the book it implies either:

1) The character has fundamentally changed who they are throughout the course of the book

2) There's a contradiction in the writing of the character

3) It is a hypocritical character

Are you espousing that God changes throughout the course of the Bible?

4) The reader lacks nuance and depth of understanding

Nope.

That's a very insufficient answer, but if that's all you have that's okay.

Yup.

I agree that it's insufficient. It's not all I've got. But given how you've approached the conversation, it's likely that there's literally nothing I can say that can make you think any differently.

1) Let's start with your initial characterization. You've entered the conversation with extremely blunt terms. Is there any reason for me to think that you're capable in this conversation of any level of nuance?

2) Do you think the three options you presented are all-encompassing of all the possibilities? You don't see this as an arbitrary false choice scenario?

3) You're doing the stupid fundamentalist thing that stupid fundamentalists do with the Bible. Why should I think that your approach to understanding the Bible is any different from the stupid fundamentalist approach?

There is no stupid "fundamentalist" thing, brah. Anyone who doesnt't reject religion is stupid.

Don't try to distance yourself, stupid is stupid

If you don't feel I'm worthy of answering, fine.

Still doesn't change the fact you didn't answer.

You've only said that there could be other answers and you don't feel like presenting them or that I won't understand them.

To go more in depth in replies if I may;

You specifically state here that your answer is insufficient. I don't know what you mean by "make me feel any differently". I'm legitimately inquisitive on the subject. It's my main sticking point with potential belief of the Bible, I'm completely open to my mind being changed. I wouldn't say it's necessarily what I'm looking for but I'm just looking to get close to truth, whatever it is.

Here you're saying I can't fathom the answer that I'm specifically asking you for. Or at least that I need to prove that to you to elicit it.

Sure enlighten me, but just replying with the equivalent of 'eh, it's complicated' isn't adding anything.

Again I'm not worthy of an answer, seems there's some redundancy in your response. That's why I prefer to keep my verbiage less than superfluous but I know that leaves you with fewer nits to pick.

Yes. It's insufficient in the same way that someone wanting to understand what light is and telling them that they're photons is insufficient. There's a lot going on.

What I mean is that my ability to communicate ideas to you based on your presentation so far is about as likely as my ability to communicate ideas to someone who says "But the Bible says *DAYS* -- Are you doubting God?"

Legitimate interest is fine. Being open to changing your mind is great. But you will need to step much further back in your assumptions than you probably realize at this moment in order to understand.

No. Here, I'm talking about your presentation. Let's drop the "if" from the wording because the presentation you've given strongly implies that you take it to be true. You make two basic claims about the God of the Bible:

and

Tell me how I might be able to unwind that for you.

The fourth option is valid and it adds something to the conversation. You've created a false choice. But here, you seem to be wanting to affirm that your three choices are, indeed, all-encompassing. Are you willing to admit that there are other possibilities besides the three you listed?

What you call "nits to pick" are details that matter. If you want to see Bible in stark black and white terms, then just read it like the fundamentalists do and don't worry about what I think.

it appears so

"And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...11&version=KJV

maybe these are the different elements.. of God.

of course in the very next book of the Bible we are told of the burning bush.

Get used to it. You've just described his stock and trade.

Right, I was just hoping he wouldn't be so petty with someone who's not antagonistic with him.

I'm dropping it because all he'll continue to do is try to turn the tables instead of answering because that opens him up to critiques. I get it Aaron.

I've spoke to pastors on the subject and they basically said 'the world was different in the OT' oh okay, Gentile's souls didn't matter is what they implied.

Sorry I'm too stupid for you to try to bring someone to Christ who's open and willing.

I guess this .. could mean.. that we are evolving out of violence.. (well some of us slowly I guess) but even more profoundly God has to show us the violence so we can realize that it is not an appropriate cycle or path to go down.

After all, this could be an accurate description of climbing a stairway to heaven where this type of violence no longer exists. This maybe another plane this may be a "restored earth".

Sure but all those non-Jews that were killed as part of some 'higher violence illustration plan' didn't have the option for salvation

Kind of a raw deal iyam, you edited out the crux of the issue

and beast and the creeping thing and the fowls of the air.. http://www.chabad.org/parshah/articl...-the-Flood.htm

where do we go when we die ?

Are you asking me or is that rhetorical and you're making a point I'm missing?

The honest answer to where 'we' go no one knows. We know what happens to our bodies, obv that may be the end of it but I hope not. I like me.

I've spoke to pastors who believe that when the rapture comes all those in the void will go to heaven. I hope so because that would go along with a loving god who is not worried about temporary situations when we have eternity in front of us. This isn't specifically listed in the Bible but that's how they're able to reconcile the situation.

Maybe that's the case but it's pure conjecture and actually lends itself to nihilism while we're here.

Okay I'll play for a moment;

You're not saying there's photons. You're just saying our depth of understanding grows. That would be the same as telling someone 'light is really tough for someone like you to understand'

Again with the I haven't proven to you that I'm worthy

Okay, I'm dumb got it.

I didn't actually make the claims you quoted. You gave me the analogy of a character in a book. I'm trying to work with what little you've given me.

Did God endorse murder of certain parties in the OT?

I already said yes, so you're either being belligerent or not reading what I've posted.

I'm trying to be clear in my questions and language. I have questions for a smart believer (that's an understatement, you clearly are). If I start writing ad nauseum I know you'll fixate on that, this goes back to you liking to turn the table to obfuscate the dialogue.