A question for Christians: how do you reconcile Biblical inconsistencies?

[LAGC]

I don't mean this in a hostile way or anything, I'm just honestly curious.

I came across something the other day and it piqued my interest:

"(the Book of) Matthew traces Joseph's descent from King David via twenty-eight intermediate generations, while Luke has forty-one generations ... worse, there is almost no overlap in the names on the two lists! In any case, if Jesus really was born of a virgin, Joseph's ancestry is irrelevant and cannot be used to fulfil, on Jesus' behalf, the Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah should be descended from David."

I mean, even if you don't take the Bible literally word-for-word, shouldn't such blatant contradictions give you pause as to how valid the rest of the Bible story is? I mean, if the Bible's authors couldn't even agree on something so fundamental as Jesus' dad's ancestry, what does it say about their recollections of the life of Jesus himself, assuming he really existed?

It just makes you wonder...

[Walk away]

1. Are you honestly trying to apply logic to this hocum?

It's all about faith.

[roguevalley]

15. the book is a history of a people trying to understand their world

and the new testament was inspired and written by a man, Paul, who didn't know Jesus, hated and fought with his followers and said that the man, Jesus, didn't matter, it was the Christ that did. He also turned everything around
including the essential messages of Jesus and the messianic movement: do unto others as you would have them do unto you (I am my brother's keeper) and love God. I find the Bible interesting but not binding and the idea of literal interpretation is a heresy.

[coyotespaw]

2. Granted, this is coming from an atheist

But if the overall story gives people comfort, then there's no need to nitpick. If faith gives people comfort, and makes them strive to be better people, then there's no need to try to take that from them. Regardless of faith, the words in red tend to work out well for everyone.

[Trajan]

3. I dont think simple faith and personal redemption are the issue ....

It's more about how the testaments are 'truth' that is validated when other human beings are subjected to it's strict rules ...

Rules that seem to justify hatred and human destruction ....

Yeah ... It's easy to say in this forum that all is lightness and beauty ...

Try telling that to those who suffered under the yoke of a perfect creed ....

[coyotespaw]

7. I've seen quite a few assholes that can't seperate the spirit from the letter of the book

and choose the interpretation that suits their prejudices. At the same time, I've also met quite a few grand souls who truly get the point of the new testament. When I was sleeping in the park, and hadn't eaten in days; a man drove by, and offered to buy me a cheeseburger. I still have the prayer card he gave to me; as a reminder that while I don't believe in his god, his (as I believe right) interpretation of Jesus's teaching led him to do an act of good for me for no reason but that it needed to be done. Hell, I've been guilty of assuming the worst of all Christians, but there are a few out there who believe in what Christ had to say and can ignore the bullshit that his followers said afterwards.

[madrchsod]

19. one of "christ`s" universal messages- the good "Sumerian"

[Walk away]

31. It's sad to think that that man did something good but because he....

believes in the bible myth his good deeds are being attributed to his belief in Jesus and not in his giving nature.


What would we all do without Jesus????? He's the only reason people don't treat each other like animals :sarcasm:

[rd_kent]

33. Thats a great story and I'm glad someone helped you in a time of need

but one does not need christ, the bible, or faith to have compassion and help their fellow man.

[humblebum]

38. Whoever said they did

"need christ, the bible, or faith to have compassion..."? that is certainly not the entire essence of Christianity.

[rd_kent]

41. I love the ignore feature. Considering only one person is on my list, I imagine its just more BS

[we can do it]

48. Well Said

comfort my ass

[Walk away]

4. Please....the road to poverty, overpopulation, war and ignorance is paved...

with "faith". In what way does following the Bible make anyone a better person? Nitpick? You're the one pointing out the nits in the bible (which apparently has endless interpretations anyway).

[coyotespaw]

8. you missed the part where I said "the words in red"

skip the b.s. parts of the bible, and look at what Jesus said, and 99 percent of it is basically saying that we should help out our fellow men. "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'" There are a (sadly) rare few Christians who follow that part of the bible, but they shouldn't be ignored just because of a large group of jackasses that don't get the point.

[Walk away]

29. Jesus said? Whatever different bible writers attribute to "Jesus"....

has been reported in several different ways by several different interpretations. For all we know Jesus didn't actually exist as one man. Asking a christian to account for a lapse in logic in a completely illogical, fabricated document doesn't make sense. Whatever leap of faith anyone wants to make about this book is about as valid as any other.

In short...it's all made up so what difference does is make if it doesn't make sense?

As far as the color red is concerned, it doesn't appear in your thread. I did read the entire post.

[DeSwiss]

26. "But if the overall story gives people comfort...."

- Lies always make people better. And they always make people strive for the truth because, well, they're lies. Of course. Christian logic at its finest......

[rd_kent]

32. Comfort is one thing..to believe it and force it on others is different.

You seem to ignore the fact that the same people who you claim get "comfort" from it, also fully believe it to be the true word of god and want the rest of us to live under that dogma.
Those words in red DON'T work out well for everyone, sorry.

[pnwmom]

5. Most Christians don't try to. Not unless they're fundies who believe

in a literal meaning of the Bible.

[aquart]

6. LOL! And if you want to know why Christ was born in a manger....

tur: ancient Sumerian for young child, also ancient Sumerian for animal stall.

[Hardrada]

10. As though the Torah does not contain all manner of mayhem

and inconsistency such as the several creation accounts in Genesis. I wonder how the Orthodox reconcile those.

[aquart]

14. Well, we don't believe God wrote the Torah.

That really helps. The Old Testament is an attempted reconciliation of myths from two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, which were joined under David. Scholars have designations for the various authors. There's a lovely, gossipy book Who Wrote the Bible which deals with it.

My favorite is the Enquirer version of Sodom and Gomorrah at the end of Judges.

[Meshuga]

16. The orthodox are not usually biblical literalists

Some could be personally but their focus is on Jewish law primarily using the shulchan aruch as a guide. Not on the suposed fact that the bible is a historical book. Their own tradition says that torah has 70 facets and each time they read it they will see a different one. And there Jewish literature explains how foolish it is to look at torah literally.

[Hardrada]

40. There is much literature in Christianity to the same effect

and has been especially so since Biblical historical criticism arose in the in the mid 19th Century. And, of course, Catholicism is reliant on tradition and (and formerly on Thomistic theology)as opposed to a fundamentalist literalism.

[ORDagnabbit]

9. you should try comparing the 4 different accounts of jesus's death and resurrection...its like

playing one of these is not like the other except that all of them arent like each other.

[lazarus]

11. I had a thread on Usenet one time

about the Easter contradictions. Went on for months, me and this one guy, with some crossposting to several newsgroups. He never did work it all out.

[ORDagnabbit]

12. yep... heres how I present it...

JOHN
20:1-the end. NOBODY in the tomb

MATTHEW
28:1-the end. NOBODY in the tomb an angel descends from heaven.

MARK
16:1-the end. ONE person in the tomb. A young man all in white in the tomb

LUKE
24:1-the end. TWO people in the tomb. two men in shining garments appeared while they were in the tomb

Read side by side Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

The bible is very explicit in the differences between the four books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They all have different people going to the tomb and seeing different things and then reporting back to different people. I’ve had children read this and they recognize that there are 4 different stories that don’t reconcile with each other.


1. John 20:1 The first of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher.

(Only Mary went by herself at when it was dark and the stone was already gone and nobody was in the tomb so she went to Simone Peter and did not see jesus on the way)


2. Matt 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher
Mat 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

(Only mary and mary went to the tomb at dawn, saw an earthquake and an angel descend from heaven who rolled the stone away and told them jesus was gone. They ran to tell the disciples and met jesus along the way)


3. Mark 16.1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
Mark 16:3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
Mark 16:4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

(Mary and Mary and Salome went to the tomb at the rising sun, the stone was still there when they got there but some how disappeared when they looked, they saw a young man all in white in the tomb who gave them the scoop. Mary saw jesus on the way to the disciples)


4. Luke 24:1 Now upon the first of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain with them.
Luke 24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary of
James, and other with them, which told these things unto
the apostles.

(mary and Joanna and mary and others went to the tomb early in the morning, found it already rolled away, two men in shining garments appeared and gave them the scoop. They ran to the disciples but nobody saw jesus on the way)

[MineralMan]

24. The earthquake thing is pretty interesting.

A great earthquake? You'd think that would be notable enough to be mentioned in all of the Gospels, wouldn't you?

[Xipe Totec]

13. A lot was lost in the translation from the original Klingon n/t

[Raster]

22. !!!

[DeSwiss]

27. LULZ

[madrchsod]

17. people pick and choose what they want from the bible

some use it for good and others for evil. the contradictions in the bible do not bother me at all.

[Meshuga]

18. I don't think it would be hard to reconcile for a non-literalist

I could be wrong but I don't see why this would be even an issue for them.

Obviously the stories were written by different people at different times so there are differences in each account. The inconsistencies are irrelevant when there is a core set of philosophies extracted from these stories that these Christians follow.

Matthew and Luke disagreement on details about a story wouldn't really matter while it is likely a problem for those who see the bible as infallible.

[blueworld]

20. Same way I reconcile scientific inconsistencies...

I continue to educate myself & pray. If I can only believe perfect people who write perfect documents to justify perfect philosophy, I'm doomed to a life of total ignorance.

[Lerkfish]

21. where is the quote from, and have you verified the number of generations yourself?

or do you accept it as gospel (pun intended)?

how do you reconcile that scientific theories are frequently disproven, refined or replaced? does that make you decide science is unsound?

[no limit]

30. Science refines theories when facts prove those theories wrong

Facts based on experiment.

So when 2,000 years ago ancient scientists found that the earth was round by looking at the stars they did so based on the facts. The bible on the other hand won't change its mind on the earth being flat even if we go in to outer space and photograph a round earth (remember the bible does claim the earth is flat). That's the difference between science and religion, comparing the 2 is absolutely absurd.

[Lerkfish]

44. prove to me that the bible says the earth is flat

because it doesn't.

Until you even understand the book you're rejecting, don't bother to show your ignorance.

[LAGC]

49. Okay.

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

If they knew the Earth was round, how could you be expected to see "all the kingdoms of the world" from one vantage point, no matter how tall?

[darkstar3]

52. You forgot

about the place where Jesus claims that East and West do not meet. I remember it was some parable about removing sin...

[Lerkfish]

58. well, that shows only a turn of phrase due to translations

if you fee that is proof, you are truly sorry.

[darkstar3]

61. Actually, it shows the usage of language

that reflected the common wisdom of the time. You are both correct. The Bible does not EXPLICITLY claim that the earth is flat, but many statements made by figures in the Bible, including Jesus, use the common language of the time to refer to a flat earth.

[no limit]

67. As I said, science works on facts. The bible doesn't

If science found that the earth was in fact flat it would go back and change it's theories. The bible on the other hand says that the earth is flat, as you have just been shown. And since you can not change the bible instead you try to justify it with an absolutely absurd justification about turn of phrases due to translations. You have been given many quotes directly from the bible that say the earth is flat, including jesus himself implying it. You can not find a single quote that implies it is round, not a single one. This has nothing to do with translation.

Of course if you really believed that it has to do with translation you would now have to apply the logic of what should you believe and what you shouldn't believe because now the entire bible could have been corrupted by language over time. So who makes the decision of what you should and shouldn't believe? The things science proves wrong you don't believe and everything that can't be proven by science about a magic man in the sky that wants you to worship him but doesn't want to give you any evidance of his existance you believe? Is that how it works?

Come on, you're smarter than that. As a human you have the most advanced mind known to man, don't use it to justify silly 2,000 year old stories. You only get one life, dont waste it on bullshit.

[LAGC]

50. Science doesn't claim to be infallible.

Its constantly evolving as new evidence presents itself, whereas religious texts say "this is how it is" and doesn't bend regardless of how much evidence there is to the contrary -- you're just told to take it on faith alone, without question.

[MineralMan]

23. Hand-waving. Lots and lots of hand-waving.

Then, they say that you cannot understand the Bible unless you're a Christian. Oddly enough, they recommend reading the Bible so you can become a Christian.

Hand-waving.

[Celebration]

25. As a self identified agnostic

Why couldn't both be true? Think about it!

All it would require is someone in his lineage to marry a distant cousin. That would create two routes back to King David.

I think I read that something like 1/4 of the US population can trace their lineage back to King John of England. You don't think those 25% of the people ever marry and procreate?

[DeSwiss]

28. K&R n/t

[hedgehog]

34. The Gospels are not biography as we understand the term.

Current Catholic teaching is that the four Gospels were interpretations of the life of Jesus from four different communities facing different issues and problems. For example, the Gospel according to John was the last one written, and contains both a more developed theology and many harsh words for Jews. It was written when Christians were being increasingly barred from the synagogues and reflects the bitterness of that experience.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Yes, Hedgehog is right

Four different interpretations of the story of Jesus from four different communities, with Mark being the bare bones "get broad outline of the story out as fast as you can" version and John being the most philosophical and mythologized.

And it's long been known that the Torah and the rest of the early part of the Hebrew Scriptures are compilations. Genesis contains two creation stories and two Noah's ark stories, one right after the other. Even the book of Isaiah is the work of three different people.

Only fundies try to take it all literally. Since few people of any variety sit down and read all four Gospels one after another, most don't notice the contradictions. Members of liturgical churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Episcopalian) hear a selection of three lessons every Sunday from the so-called Common Lectionary, which runs on a three-year cycle. You get through all four Gospels, but in sequence, not in parallel.

I once heard former Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong preach. As many of you know, he is one of the people that fundamentalists love to hate, because his theology is pretty unorthodox. However, when he was a guest preacher in my church in Portland, he spoke on one of the readings for the day, the story of Jonah.

Now he didn't start by saying, "It's ridiculous to think that a man could survive for three days inside a fish," because I'm sure the whole congregation would have come back with, "Well, DUH!" Instead he spoke of why this story was included in the Bible and the meaning behind it.

That's pretty typical of what happens in liberal churches.

Fundamentalists are different. Many of you rail against "organized religion," but the real problems come with UNORGANIZED religion, where anyone can declare himself a preacher without any training or vetting by anyone, with no established procedures for dealing with the Bible or anything else. If the preacher wants to live like a king off the offerings of poor parishioners, preach against gays every Sunday, or pray for the president's death, there's no one to rein him in.

In liberal mainstream churches, clergy are paid a specific salary (on a local salary scale), the finances are controlled by a board of lay people elected at large from the congregation, the sermons are expected to follow the lectionary, and political advocacy is forbidden.

[Walk away]

36. So the Fundies are the "Bad Guys" and the nice Christians...

are no problem at all. No problem for anyone except gay and lesbian couples who want to marry or women who believe on free choice for their own bodies. And those are just the easy to detect issues.

Most of these religions (and especially Christianity) were created and fostered in order to control large groups of easily led people. The political impact of ALL of the major Christ based sects is still profound and regressive.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. Uh, my denomination ordains gays and lesbians (including 2 bishops), leaves decisions about

abortion and birth control up to the individual, and many clergy (including my own) perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, even though these ceremonies have no legal standing in Minnesota. Oh, and our presiding bishop is a woman.

You were saying?

[Walk away]

45. I was trying to come up with a number small enough to reflect....

the percentage of christians who belong to a denomination like yours. You either know full well that you're church is extremely to the left of other christian churches or you are living in a christian dream world.

Do you think you have won some kind of argument by using an example that does not reflect 90%?, 95%? maybe even %98 of the christian churches in this country? Is that the definition of a spurious argument? How many members does your denomination have? I'd like to see how well it reflects "christian ideas".

[rd_kent]

46. Yours is definitely the minority then.

There is an exception to every rule.......still, most of the christian sects are opposed to these issues.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. Let's see, the Episcopalians, ELCA Lutherans, and UCCs fit this description

and so do parts of many other denominations

[darkstar3]

53. That's all well and good,

but how does that prove your views are not part of a small minority? Do you have any percentages?

[rd_kent]

54. And? I'm guessing that 90%+ of Christians are anti-choice, anti-gay marriage, anti-personal choice

on "morality" issues.

I am glad that you and some of your christian brothers and sisters are able to keep your religious beliefs and views to yourself and allow others to decide how they want to live their life. But as I stated before, you are the small minority.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. I don't have the statistics at hand, but I know that Lutherans are the largest

Protestant denomination in several Midwestern states and in the top three in several other places. Episcopalians are evenly spread around the country, perhaps 2% nationwide. I have no idea about the UCC's, but they seem to be pretty common in New England and states settled by New Englanders. Methodists and Presbyterians are everywhere, and they can be either very liberal or very conservative.

[trotsky]

60. You are mixing in the ultra-conservative Wisconsin and Missouri Synod Lutherans.

And none of what you say disputes the fact that liberal Christians in the USA are a small minority.

[darkstar3]

63. Thank you,

I wanted to point that out last night, but didn't get the chance. ELCA =/= all Lutherans, by far.

[trotsky]

64. And even within the ELCA there is not liberal agreement.

The recent decision to ordain homosexual pastors has caused schisms all over the place. My aunt's ELCA church up in northern Minnesota is breaking up because of it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. And there isn't agreement even among so-called "conservative" denominations

Baptists are by and large conservatives, but the American Baptist Church (that's the official name) is right up there among the liberal denominations.

Besides, there are non-religious bigots as well.

Highly secularized Oregon (with 17% self-identified atheists and most of the rest totally ignorant of any religion) passed a referendum against gay marriage.

Furthermore, most Libertarians, especially those of the Ayn Rand variety, are atheists, and in Oregon, at least, they were some of the nastiest people one could hope not to meet.

So it's a mixed bag all around.

[trotsky]

68. It sure is a mixed bag.

But liberal Christians are the clear minority no matter what.

[kwassa]

71. I think real conservative Christians are a minority as well

Most are pretty middle-of-the-road kind of people. Many may not agree with the official stance of the church they attend relative to social values. Conservative Catholics don't support the official RC stance against the death penalty, liberal Catholics support abortion rights.

The evangelicals get lots of press, and are very politically active, but they are not a majority of Christians.

[darkstar3]

72. Prove it.

Show me stats.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

79. I find arguing ad hom with "liberal Christians" so hilarious.

You're the ones who are supposed to be taking the good parts of the Bible to heart and ditching the more annoying ones as "simply allegorical". So tell me, Mr. Episcopalian, do you believe yourself doubly damned for your comments here?

and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire . " - Matthew 5:22

Or was this verse just allegorical too?

[rd_kent]

81. I do not see that as a personal insult. He showed that you are being hypocritical.

[darkstar3]

83. Oh he knows, he just has a grudge.

He and I have a history. He's never forgiven himself for falling apart in the thread where I put him on ignore, and now that he just realized I've cleaned out my ignore list, he's purging.

Of course, I could be wrong...I have, after all, been ignoring him for months.

[kwassa]

90. You have a great fantasy life.

There is nothing you said in the past post that is true. Not one thing.

[trotsky]

85. Do you think people who believe in a literal Creation are "conservative Christians"?

Please identify some other theological positions that you would consider indicative of a "conservative Christian," too.

I just want a fixed target here so the discussion can proceed.

[rd_kent]

65. Thats great, but that does not change the fact that you are a small minority.

Why can you not see that? Again, I am glad you have a liberal stance, but you do not represent mainstream christianity.

[kwassa]

74. How would you know we are a small minority?

What is your basis for saying that? Most mainline denominations trend liberal. Look at the United Council of Churches and their members.

I am also Episcopal, and I will bet we will be marrying same-sex couples at Washington National Cathedral within a year. DC City Council has just voted to legalize same-sex marriages here. Congress has a month to overrule it, and will not likely do so.

I know Bishop Chane, and he is strongly in favor of same-sex marriages, and he runs the show around these parts.

edit to add: I just attended a reception for a same-sex marriage over the holidays, as DC recognizes same-sex marriages from other states already. The couple lives in DC but went to another state to get married, and came home to throw their reception.

[rd_kent]

82. Because only a small minority of places have overcome the religious intolerance.

Its great that DC was able to overcome it. The fact remains that is the majority of xtians in this country are the ones voting against this stuff. If THEY were the minority, it would be easier to pass equal rights for all. Find me one person that is against equal rights for gays and anti-choice for women that hold that opinion for a reason OTHER than religion, and I will show you 100 that hold it BECAUSE of religion.

[kwassa]

89. That I'd like to see

"Find me one person that is against equal rights for gays and anti-choice for women that hold that opinion for a reason OTHER than religion, and I will show you 100 that hold it BECAUSE of religion."

I think this is one more unsupportable assertion in a thread full of completely unsupported assertions, including my own.

I think you are conflating religion and culture, personally. The idea of marriage being between one man and one woman is imbeded in our culture as a tradition for hundreds of years. To think differently than that requires that many really look at what their concept of marriage is based upon.

On the other hand, there is no place in the Bible that says that marriage is between one man and one woman. In the days of the Old Testament patriarchs, a man had as many wives as he could afford. The history of marriage over the past two thousand years has wandered all over the place.

[darkstar3]

92. What you say is partially true.

There are cultural reasons (essentially what friends of mine have called "the ick factor") to oppose same sex marriage on purely theoretical grounds. But theoretical grounds and political grounds are very different. President Obama opposes abortion on theoretical grounds, but he does not actively try and fight abortion rights, so his opposition does not extend to political grounds.

Essentially what I'm getting at here is that many people may not like abortion and gay marriage on a purely theoretical level, but they are not the ones out there fighting to take away the rights of women and gays. The ones who are out there trying to take away the rights of other people are overwhelmingly religious. In fact, among the "traditional marriage", "pro-life" crowd, I haven't met or even read about a single non-religious member.

Is this assertion unsupportable? I think not. I'll start with a pull from the Southern Poverty Law Center's website, where they show the top 12 most influential anti-gay groups in the US, and wouldn't you know it, all 12 are groups of god-baggers.

Here's a wiki page about anti-choice organizations. More god-baggers. Wiki does manage to mention the "godless prolifers," and essentially proves rd's point in the process, because if you visit their website, you'll find the "godless prolifers" are made up of about 300 members worldwide. (Funny side note about that site: "James Matthew" the atheist must be a horrible disappointment to his dear old mom.)

It's quite simple, really. Simply pick a topic of debate, like abortion, and google the phrase "opponents to abortion" or better yet "anti-choice organizations". Just like with anti-gay organizations, you will find that the staggeringly vast majority of people who join and create these regressive and disgusting groups are religious. To deny it simply because I and others can't post enough links on a message board to make you happy is just plain dishonest.

[kwassa]

93. I agree that those that launch the political campaigns are primarily religious

but what I am talking about is the reaction of the voter in the booth who doesn't know the people behind it but simply looking at the proposition in front of them. That is where the cultural tradition kicks in.

Obviously, the Mormon church was a huge force behind Prop 8 in California, and other religious groups are behind the organized resistance to same-sex initiatives. The great mass of voters, though, in my opinion, probably voting out of cultural concept rather than religious views, though some of the votes certainly do have a religious basis. Religion and culture are intertwined, but it is changing the mindset that is the issue.

In all national polls the majority of Americans still don't approve of same sex marriage, though the numbers approving are going up all the time. Barely 50% of Democrats approve of same-sex marriage. 61% approve of civil unions, and a majority of all voters approve of that.

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=424

The April 2009 Pew Research Center survey also found that opponents of same-sex marriage outnumber supporters by the widest margin among older people, with those over age 65 opposing gay marriage by a margin of 64% to 24%. By contrast, those under age 30 are about evenly divided on the issue, with 43% in favor of legalizing gay marriage and 45% opposed.

Some of the largest differences on the question of gay marriage occur among religious groups. For instance, those who say they attend worship services at least once a week are much more likely to oppose same-sex marriage (69%) than those who say they attend less often (45%).

Opinion also varies considerably by religious tradition. While about eight-in-ten white evangelical Protestants (81%) oppose gay marriage, opposition among white mainline Protestants (55%) and African-American Protestants (56%) is more in line with the population as a whole (54%). Meanwhile, in spite of the Catholic Church's outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage, Catholics are closely divided on the issue, with 45% opposing gay marriage and 39% favoring it. Among the religiously unaffiliated population, a much smaller number (25%) opposes same-sex marriage.

[moobu2]

37. Most of them never even bothered to read it.

so they have no idea.

[struggle4progress]

42. Inconsistent accounts are a common part of human experience. Try comparing

different news stories about current events, for example. That honest eyewitnesses do not all say the same thing is well-known in court cases. Nor is it rare in science: general relativity and quantum mechanics are not entirely consistent with each other

Why should the situation with religious texts be different?

Genesis begins with two rather different creation accounts. There's no reason to expect that readers failed to notice that fact immediately when the book assumed its current form, two and a half millennia ago: in fact, the inconsistencies must have been obvious during the original process of assembling the text

Similarly, there's no reason to expect that readers failed to notice the inconsistencies of the current Christian canon from its earliest days

With regard to the genealogy of Jesus, Matthew gives a careful ancestry of Joseph, but then promptly relates a miracle birth narrative indicating Joseph was not actually the father of Jesus; Mark entirely bypasses the subject; Luke relates two miraculous birth narratives and various other tales before pointing out that everyone incorrectly regarded Jesus as the son of Joseph and giving a genealogy of Joseph; and John rhapsodizes Word and Light. So half the gospel writers apparently do not care one bit about the genealogy of Jesus, and the other two provide inconsistent patriarchal lineages together with miracle birth narratives suggesting the patriarchal lineages are irrelevant

Of course, one cannot now go to the early Christian communities and exclaim "Holy Moly! Matthew and Luke don't give consistent genealogies of Jesus!" in order to view their reactions. But I suspect they would simply have shrugged, as if the matter was of little interest

[Igel]

43. Contradictions come in a variety of forms.

In some cases, I don't think the contradictions aren't in the text but in the interpretations. The solution to these is fairly simple: Alter the interpretation.

In other cases, there are kludges, i.e., interpretations forced to make the text as a whole coherent but not clearly in the text itself. For example, I've heard it said that Matthew and Luke don't give the same genealogies because they're not the same genealogies. One does it the traditional way, on the daddy's side, while the other gives the ma's side. It's also okay to skip generations or groups if there's no point in it. Some of the kludges really rely crucially on a specific textual version or pecularities of Gk grammar.

In yet other cases I don't buy the re-interpretations (since sometimes they get pretty extreme, or simply fail to be coherent) and can't see a workable kludge. Those I leave alone. If I don't understand them I don't understand them. The problem, as I see it, are those who think that if they can't understand something than it can't be understand and everything associated with it must be utterly and irredeemably flawed. It drives one contingent to wild attempts to make sense of something that doesn't, so far; and it drives others away shouting inanities that they wouldn't tolerate if said about most other things.

For example, I'd like to think that I'd have just looked at the ultraviolet catastrophe and said, "Huh, how about that" and not concluded that where the old 'law' worked it couldn't work at all because it wasn't all inclusive (I'd also like to think I'd have read Planck's solution and said, "Yup, that's it"). I feel the same way about the spectator sport of watching people try to unite quantum theory with gravity into a nice GUT. Just because they can't doesn't mean that what they have worked out isn't usable. I mean, even just plain Newton's fine for a lot of things without relativity or quantum mechanics. And if the traditional pH scale fails to accommodate superacids and superbases, eh, so what? It's still damned handy for aqueous solutions, even if your chem teacher doesn't bother to explain *why*, exactly, the pH scale is limited.

[trotsky]

47. This thread gives you the answer that I already knew.

Like their fundie brethren, even the liberal Christians simply deny there are contradictions. They go about it in different ways, but both basically hide behind the vague language of translation over transcription over translation to defend their common holy book with the same ferocity.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

55. Free entertainment here:

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

I don't know what keeps Christians going. I guess my friends who are liberals must have had some experience that convinced them they were on the right path. I never got any messages from God, he never spoke to me, I prayed and saw no difference in my life. In fact, when I was a Christian, I felt horrible and depressed because I couldn't stand a preacher ranting about how worthless and horrible we all were just because we were born -- original sin. I got suicidal and had to leave.

My mistake was taking their bullshit seriously in the first place.

Jeuss is an artificial construct, a mythical figure. His death and resurrection is a fake solution to a fake problem -- original sin.

It's just like a commercial convincing you you have an imaginary problem you need to buy a product for to cure it.

[laconicsax]

56. Don't forget Rule #74.

If a passage in the Bible doesn't sit well with your preconceptions or sense of morality, then it's metaphorical.

[trotsky]

59. Exactly!

And its corollary: if any non-believer pins you down trying to explain HOW you judge it to be metaphorical, just accuse them of being a stupid militant fundie atheist.

[darkstar3]

62. Wait, did a DUer

that we've both argued with ad nauseum write these rules? :)

[laconicsax]

69. I think they're part of a rule-book sold in religious kitsch shops

[rug]

70. I don't. I let people who have spent decades on this stuff explain it.

[rd_kent]

80. SO you choose not to think for yourself? That explains a lot.

[rug]

84. Tell me how you figured out particle physics.

[rd_kent]

86. Were not talking about particle physics, now are we?

And particle physics is science, where your ideas and hypothesis can be tested and verified to be true or not. The bible, well, thats just a book of tales written by many different people, translated many, many times and has no ability to be verified as even being close to true or accurate.

So you stupid little strawman didn't stand a chance, did it?

[rug]

87. We're talking about learning things beyond your ken. It does apply to you as well.

[uberllama42]

88. You can't possibly miss the difference between particle physics and the simple narrative elements

of the bible.

It takes years to build a comprehensive understanding of particle physics--the better part of a decade, at least. Very few people do graduate work in physics, so we have to rely on the explanations proffered by people who have if we are to gain a working grasp of the concepts at play in particle physics.

The bible, by contrast, is not 'beyond your ken.' Surely there is a lot to absorb in the bible, but the discussion here has been primarily about the narrative of the Gospels. It would take longer to grasp every use of metaphor, every theological claim, and every poetic nuance of the original Hebrew or Greek in the entire bible. But we're talking about the story itself. You can read through all four Gospels in a day or two.

What we're dealing with here is the fact that Luke and Matthew present two different genealogies of Jesus, and similar observations. Any adult can deal with the simple story elements of Jesus's life. Your particle physics analogy is a red herring.

[rug]

91. You've demonstrated, again, your ignorance of ancient writings, scripture or otherwise.

I can't wait to hear your analysis of Grendel.

[uberllama42]

94. If I was wrong, you would have pointed out how

You don't like to present arguments. You just like to insult people. And that's what you did here.

[rug]

95. You're right. I didn't intend to insult you. I thought you were my favorite stalker.

But the argument is this: There are at least 4 types of inconsistencies found in the Bilble. It has been the sugject of study by scholars for centuries. As archaeology finds more fragments, more artifacts, the subject is constantly revisited. So it is not a simple matter of reading a straight narrative. To reconcile these consistencies, if possible, much has to be learned about the writers, the audience, the setting, and the likekely meaning and purpose of those writings. It is a daunting task, one which I personally am not inclined to undertake.

[uberllama42]

96. I can see that

If we're talking about inconsistencies in the entire bible, we're really not dealing with parallel accounts of the same series of events. Comparing Numbers and Genesis doesn't present the same issues as comparing Luke and Matthew. The Pentateuch has (at least) two distinct presentations of what God is and how He (or They) operate(s), and a surface reading of those books won't provide much insight.

I'm sorry we had a misunderstanding.

[JerseygirlCT]

97. That's easy

I do not believe the Bible is God's dictation. I believe it is a work of man, inspired by God and by mankind's search for relationship with God.

Your example is a good one to point out to literalists that they usually miss the forest for the trees.

[laconicsax]

98. You're sort of dodging the question.

There are a lot of contradictions all given in the same authoritative tone. How do you sort out which parts should be followed and which disregarded?

[JerseygirlCT]

100. You have to dig below the stories

I think the messages of Jesus' life and ministries provides a great deal of insight - even if one doesn't believe Jesus even existed.

I think throughout the entire bible, there are examples of human struggle. The contradictions are evidence of the human authors.

Bottom line? Follow what leads to greater love among people.

[laconicsax]

104. So it's basically whatever you want it to be.

The moral of the Old Testament, if one exists, is definitely not one of love. It's hard to find a book of the Tanakh that doesn't glorify (or at least condone) rape, murder, genocide, or some other horrific act of barbarism.

If the stories are to be believed, Lot offered his daughters to a mob to be gang-raped; Jephthah killed tens of thousands and offered his daughter as a human sacifice. These two men are praised in the New Testament. It's pretty hard to see these as part of a message of promoting "greater love among people."

If these stories are only metaphorical, the gang-rape, mass murder, and human sacrifice in the narrative still has to be dealt with.

[mvd]

99. Good point

The Bible is written in such a way that Christians have to interpret and think for themselves a little. It is not all laid out in black and white.

[JerseygirlCT]

101. Exactly nt

[rd_kent]

102. "Thinking for themselves" is NOT what religion is all about.

If it were, then religion would be a personal ideology where people worshiped a god in their own way and kept it to themselves.
But since religion is a control mechanism, we have the many different sects, most of which condemn everyone else for not believing the same they do.


Thinking for yourself? puh-lease.

[mvd]

103. I don't think religion HAS to be that way. Unfortunately, too much chooses to be

Having certain basic beliefs and customs make sense in religion, but religion can be open to different views. I consider myself more spiritual than religious.

[Judy Blue Eyes]

105. What Christians Don't Understand about the Bible!

Your question is legitimate and well thought out.  Easier yet,
you have only to read the first few chapters of Genesis to
start to wonder.  After all, When Cane slew Abel, he ran off
to the LAnd of Nod and took a wife.  If Adam and Eve are the
first human beings that God created, who are these people in
the land of Nod?  Whuzzup here?
The simple fact is that the Bible is MAN'S WORD about his
experiences with God....it is NOT GOD'S WORD!  And for
Christians, the only words of God that you may find will be in
the New Testament as the directly quoted words of Jesus
Christ.  For Christians who believe that Christ is Lord, only
his words are the word of God.  Period.
And for Christians who believe, the gospels of Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John, read almost exactly alike and for four men who
never met each other or Jesus, these gospels verify the
validity of Christ's teachings to us.
Christ himself warned us not to go into the Old Testament for
direction.  He said that it was like "sewing rags onto
new garments" and "putting new wine into old
skins".  Many times Christ is approached by pharisees who
are experts on the LAw of Moses and ask him why he does not
follow it, as it is the law of God and he is supposed to be
the son of God.  But Christ makes it clear that HIS word is
final and often at odds with Old Testament teachings.  And the
rest of the New Testament is just editorializing.
You will find literally THOUSANDS of obvious contradictions in
the Bible.
So, please, if you want to know how REAL Christians believe,
get a Bible that has the words of Jesus printed in red and
just read those...that's all.  And please don't get involved
with a cult calling themselves "Fundamentalists",
because they spend a lot of time trying to put a square peg in
a round hole trying to justify the whole of the Bible.  And
they get angry when you point out the obvious contradictions. 
-Judy

[lazarus]

106. OT law still applies

Matthew
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.