Biblical Contradictions?
I very much respect those who wish to be skeptical of scripture and ask how Christians deal with contradictions in the Bible. But I would hope for a little respect in that you recognize that Christianity is not ignorant of these claims of contradictions. I would hope that those of you who write those questions would at least phrase them in a sense of recognition that we have an answer, though you may not like it, to all the contradictions that can be offered. I'm not saying stop questioning, but make it more of a curious question rather than one that speaks implicitly as if you have finally 'caught us.' For a couple thousand years we have heard all of those which you can offer. Christians will be happy to offer an explanation, but it doesn't foster discussion if one just asserts it rudely. What's your thoughts?
Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
1) The word "heaven" is (like most nouns) an ambiguous word. That is: "heaven" has more than one meaning, particularly in the Bible. Most likely the two passages are not using "heaven" in the same way. 2) Even if you choose to ignore that fact, you definitely misinterpret the phrase "no man". Here is the answer I gave to Moe (thanks to him for posting the link): The relevant term in this passage is "no man". Note that the passage does not read, "No man has ever ascended into Heaven". It simply reads, "No man". What if I told you, "No man is more than 200 years old." Would you say, "What about Elijah - he's about 3,000 years old!" or "What about George Washington - he's nearly 300 years old!" Of course you would not. Why? Because **you know from common usage** that the term "no man" in that context means "no man living on Earth". Indeed, that is **almost always** the meaning of the term "no man". Examples proving the claim: "No man has spoken with Julius Caesar" "No man has seen Bloody Mary" "No man has the location of Attila the Hun's grave" etc. ad nauseum. We simply - normally, almost always, by convention - never include **former people** - people no longer alive - when we use the phrase "no man" (unless a qualifier like "ever" is included *for that specific purpose*). If you read the surrounding context, you will realize that Jesus **also** used that term with that intended meaning. Conclusion: the connotation of "no man" is *almost always* "no man living on Earth", and that meaning is also the meaning employed by Jesus in that passage. From the immediate textual context we can see that he was warning his disciples about frauds who were making false claims about visiting Heaven. - Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/
Christians: Were you aware "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms?
Trying to condemn and reject homosexuals is a selective use of the Bible against gays and lesbians. Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an "abomination." Leviticus 20:25 demands that "you are to make a distinction between the clean and unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." You can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others. Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Nobody today who claims to be a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about them! Why do you think that most people don't know about them?
A person who says they lack belief in the existence of gods cannot define their identity based on gods, whether gods exist or not.if by "identity" you mean our philosophy as atheists then that's basically a true statements. Most of us define our "identity" by a lot of other things before "atheist" ... human being, man, son, friend, worker, such-and-such political persuasion, nationality, etc.But yes, of course you can't define yourself as a nonbeliever in God without defining what God means. Since some "god" claims are not truth-apt (notably some of the new age ones, some - but by no means all - Hindu ideas about ultimate reality, some of the "Christian" ideas such as those of Spong, etc.) I usually say that I am atheist with respect to the Islamo-Christian God. Muslims and Christians spent over a thousand years defining exactly what "God" is.And that's the God I do not believe in. I don't believe in a bunch of other Gods and gods too, but I bet you agree with me on that. I bet you believe that Loki never really existed, right? But I'm not particularly atheist about Loki ... few people today believe in Him, and claims about him are, I think, generally less dogmatic.So, right, an atheist (which I define here as someone who doens't believe in the Islamo-Christian God) does define their identity as an atheist, by reference to the idea of the Islamo-Christian God.So what?Certainly you're not trying to resurrect Anselm's argument that just because you can imagine the idea of God, He must be true?Do you believe in Santa Claus? But to define yourself as a non-believer in Santa Claus, you have to define what Santa Claus is.And you probably do agree that Saint Nicholas, the original "Santa Claus" existed. And you might say that fake Santas exist. So if "Santa Claus" is just a man ina fat suit of red and white at Christmas, then Santa Claus exists. This doesn't mean that you don't really disbelieve in Santa Claus. It just means we have to define what Santa Claus means.Hope that makes sense. Just because you are opposed to the idea of something doesn't make that idea true. In a different, moral, example, I am opposed to the idea of the United Nations killing every firstborn child. The fact that I am opposed to that idea does not mean that anybody is doing that, and it certainly doesn't mean that the UN has that idea at all (just in case you aren't following me, the UN is a great organisation, they have absolutely no plan to do anything of the sort).
The fact that a country founded on principles of freedom leads the world in prison population. There are a lot of contributing factors to this, the biggest being a series of "tough on crime" initiatives in the last few decades which required increased prison sentences for a wide range of offenses. Even judges are often restricted from reducing prison sentences. A related contradiction is that the country is based on principles of equality, but criminals seem to be considered a separate class from other human beings. Politicians rarely lose support for wanting to make conditions worse for prisoners, and will usually lose support if they want to make things better. Putting resources towards rehabilitation and reintegration is considered a waste of money. There are other groups in America that get mistreated and/or ignored, but very few people seem to really care about prisoner's rights. Indeed, many people are incensed that they have any.
Creationists how do you account for contradiction in Genesis chapters one and two?
God is speaking to the two other persons of the Godhead: "Let us make"... and the spirit of the man was made ( the human spirit ) . Look at it this way God is imputing in them His will, Chapter 1: 26-29, and then made an earth suit for Adam in chapter 2:7 In Genesis 2: 18, God took the female out of Adam and made the woman, (a man with a womb), Remember man is male and female. Today we speak any o way with want, and many times we don't see a female as being a man, but only a male as being a man. This is the problem, many have with reading scripture. They don't take the time to document the terminology of God, and get into trouble, with contradictions. Most people get married and can careless about knowing their spouse. They only want what they are for, what is in it for them, and the first one to want out of the marriage is the female, because her husband could cares less about knowing really knowing her as a person. The testimony of millions. Notice Isaiah 55: 8 , "My ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts; as heaven is above the earth, so are my ways and my thoughts above your ways and your thoughts. Warning; Only the humble will take this in without mocking God. Notice your first impulse in your question. You haven't even got past two Chapters, and you are already thinking you are smarter than God, te te te te te te te "CONTRADICTIONS" TE TE TE TE. When trying to understand the theory of evolution the word theory assumption, are much much much more of a foundation of sand, and you foil over your self production of ignorance, te te te te te te
Cynics are rarely disappointed. I ascribe to the belief that the masses are asses. In the Ethics of our Fathers Rabbi Akiva is quoted as saying that the the first step to wisdom is to hold your tongue (admittedly more of a paraphrasing than a literal translation). Performers, and especially comedians, are afflicted with a compulsion to express whatever thoughts are bouncing around in their brain, the more sensational and controversial the better. So if Rabbi Akiva is right, people like Roseanne Barr are wisdom challenged.I don't think Roseanne is racist. I don't think she's any worse than most of humanity. I have very low expectations of people in general and even lower expectations of performers, whose lives revolve around getting attention. In a better world performers would focus upon entertaining people and would refrain from expressing opinions that will inevitably get them in trouble with one group or another at some point. Until then, they will continue to entertain us not only with their performances but also with their scandals.