That, and I think people have proved time and again that kids are possible without marriage also. Marriage traditionalists who want the institution defined by the Bible (as its writers say, not at they or the people they describe therein actually do, mind you) should understand that it is part of the extensive social rules for the Hebrews woven into those stories and thereby given divine "authority". For those of us living in 21st century America or elsewhere, these rules aren't exactly binding unless we choose to make them so, and then they need a good reason. The effects on children aren't severe enough to warrant instituting these rules here and now the way certain modern Christians would like to.. And their arguments are all the more dubious where gay marriage is concerned, since we're not even discussing children being affected, but the lifestyle choices of (presumably) competent adults. Anyway, this is a sad direction for a discussion of bible contradictions to go. I think the conflicting nativity stories are much more interesting, as an example.
I have provided an alternative, and addressed your various concerns - with links and data, which you have ignored. That's not the real stumbling block in this discussion - the block is your unwillingness to consider any alternative to govt welfare. Seems this is a good example of crossover between closed mindedness in science and social issues.
Earlier you spoke of open mindedness and the scientific method, being able to consider issues objectively. Now when you are faced with something that contradicts your personal bias, rather than address it objectively and face the possibility that you are wrong you accuse me of lying. Looks like you just proved your various arguments wrong. The one in this conversation who cannot think objectively is not the religious person, but the self-proclaimed "scientific" person.
No, you have not addressed the only pojnts where we disagree, as far as I know: coverage and funding. Then, you go for the insults.
I am addressing it objectively. I am not sure of what you want. I've praised the efforts of your church even though I do not share its religious beliefs. I agree it is more efficient in terms of what actually gets done. But, I also pointed out that it is not a viable replacement for our social safetynet. And, I pointed out the reasons for that - capacity and funding. Charities are free to address all the need they want to address. Its not as if there is nothing left to do. In fact, maybe your church could qualify to administer federal aid in your area - taking advantage of the improvedfunding solution and coordinating with the coverage plan tney have. Btw, I didn't mean to accuse you of lying, I asked that you be careful when representing how hard churches are willing to work to ensure the succes of families headed by same sex couples.
I asked that you not lie when answering a specific question. And, you didn't answer the question - a respectful alternative.
maat: Now, that's cute. Apologetics? Hardly. I am simply demonstrating read-comprehension skills by paying attention to context (the surrounding words, verses and chapters), while you continue to cherry-pick words from the verses and ignore everything else that is part of the context. You claimed in your opening post that Genesis 7:2 is a contradiction. "You must take with you every kind of clean animal by sevens, the male and its mate; and every animal that is not clean just two, the male and its mate." (Genesis 7:2) As everyone reading this thread can see, the verse clearly states that ALL or EVERY animal considered clean by Jehovah are to be taken into Noah's ark in sets of sevens, and ALL or EVERY animals considered unclean by Jehovah are only to be taken into the ark in sets of two. You insist that because the word "all" or "every" refers to two of every kind of animal in one place, and the same expression "all" or "every" refers to seven of every kind of animal elsewhere--that--according to you, is a Bible contradiction. The reality is that Genesis 7:2 makes a distinction between clean and unclean animals by telling Noah how many clean or unclean of "all" or "every kind" should be taken into the ark by Noah. Even the average Middle School kid could process that if they were to pay attention to context (surrounding words, verses and chapters), which you refuse to do. None of the cherry-picked verses in your opening post have turned out to be contradictions. DEBUNKED! Alter2Ego
Still not sure what irritated you initially... Aside from that though.. Do you believe in spiritual things at all, sir ?
Uh no, it does not make a distinction in ch. 6, it clearly states all and every kind, which would include any clean or unclean. And, you have not addressed the birds.
maat: There is no need to make the distinction at Genesis chapter 6 because Genesis chapter 7 is part of the context to chapter 6. Genesis chapters 6 and 7 are part of the same instruction. Both chapters are discussing the impending flood and the need to preserve samples of "EVERY LIVING THING," which automatically includes the birds since they are among "every living thing of all flesh." "{19} And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. {20} Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive." (Genesis 6:19-20 -- English Standard Version) Genesis 7:2 states unclean animals should be taken into the ark in sets of twos and clean animals should be taken into the ark in sets of sevens. So the birds were considered unclean, which is why only two of each kind of bird was to be taken into the ark. "You must take with you every kind of clean animal by sevens, the male and its mate; and every animal that is not clean just two, the male and its mate." (Genesis 7:2) What you and most people fail to realize is that that when the Bible was originally written, it did not have chapter numbers or verse numbers. Only the Bible books were identifiable. There was no such thing as chapter 6 or chapter 7 or verse 1 through verse 20 within a chapter. The invention of chapter numbers and verse numbers did not begin until the 13th century, and ended in the 16th century--over 1,000 years after the Bible was written. "When were the books of the Bible divided into chapters and verses? Who did the dividing? The Bible consists of 66 distinct books that were written in different times and places. When originally compiled, the books of the Bible did not include chapters and verses. As such, these divisions are not inspired, yet are very helpful in quickly finding and citing biblical passages. Our modern chapter divisions of the Bible were created by Stephen Langton and were completed around AD 1227. Wycliffe's Bible (completed in 1382 before the printing press) was the first Bible to use Langton's chapter divisions. Since this time, English Bible translations have followed the pattern, with other languages adopting the same division system. Bible verses were created much later. The verses of the Old Testament were developed by a Jewish rabbi named Nathan in 1448. The New Testament's verses were developed in 1551 by Robert Estienne (also known by the name Stephanus). His divisions were first used in the Greek New Testament published in 1551 and were used again in a French Bible in 1553." https://www.compellingtruth.org/divided-Bible-chapters-verses.html See that? Chapter divisions was completed in 1227 AD. Bible verses in the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) was not done until 1448 AD. The verses for the chapters in the New Testament (Greek Scriptures) did not come until 1551 AD. The last book of the Bible was written in 98 AD or the 1st Century AD. So we are talking 1,200 to 1,500 years later that chapters and verses were inserted into the Bible. That's why when reading the Bible, one has to pay attention to context--the surrounding words, verses, and chapters within the same Bible book. Why? Because parts of the same instruction has been known to appear in the nearby chapter, as happened in this instance where you are arguing that chapter 6 does not distinguish clean from unclean creatures. Simply put, the end of a chapter within the same Bible book does not always mean the end of the same conversation. The conversation can continue in the next chapter. Alter2Ego
10. According to the biblical fairy tale the Hoy Spirit says that Christians are not supposed to eat meat or food that has been offered to idols. But Paul says that it's OK if they want to gorge themselves on such food. So who is right, the Holy Spirit or Paul?
The Bible actually consists of 80 books. Until about 135 years ago all of the Bible versions contained 80 books. Then two English guys decided to delete the 14 Apocrypha books that had been part of the Bible since it was first written in 692 A.D.
None of this refutes the contradiction. The context is specific on both accounts and contradict. Your attempts at apologetics is not refuting this. You are only attempting to insert doubt among the facts. And again, you did not address the contradicting numbers of the birds.
Outside of the stupidity and self righteous attitudes displayed by some here, what is there to get irritated about? In response to your question, no I don't believe in "spiritual" things at all.
Get a dictionary, learn to read and reason. abandon your blind faith and you will see. You also might try not being such a tool and thinking you are so clever. Trust me, you are not.
Fair enough. I didn't either, for many years, but I am willing to entertain spiritual matters. We, or humanity does not know a great deal. And things we find mysterious, by lack of knowledge, are often put into this "gods will" type of frame. I enjoy looking into these things on occasion.
Looking is not believing. Things that we do not know should be followed by the word yet. How do you know that humanity does not know a great deal? We have nothing to check it against unless you happen to believe in fairy tales.
And that is a good question. How do we measure our knowledge without a instrument of measurement ? Well then, we imagine an ideal then don't we ?
