Problems with the Bible

Now I will admit, there I do like the New Testament. However in order for me to accept that as the literal truth I must suspend logic and reason. There are huge issues that prevent me from thinking to the book to be the word of God.

1. The Old Testament is in stark contrast to the New Testament. I have never received an explanation as to why some OT verses are cited (often, quite dishonestly) while others are not. The most common one being Leviticus 18:11 and Leviticus 20:13 as an argument against allowing gay marriage, yet no one actually advocates the deaths of homosexuals. However you never see anyone citing Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Be intellectually honest. You are not Jewish. Christianity lies within the New Testament.

2. The Bible is not one book, don't treat it as such. It is a collection of books arranged by man. They were many books considered and many books rejected. The canonization was a largely arbitrary process. Translations have been a greatly political process. God did not write the books, man did. I would find it far more convincing if a being capable of creating all time and space would also have the ability to pick up a pen and write a series of words.

3. Many parts of the Bible blatantly contradict observations. A perfect book authored by divine inspiration would be perfect as well.
Its not.

4. The common usage of the Bible is to look out instead of in. To look to something that can never be touched rather than to look inward and touch God. A being capable of creating all time and space should have the ability to speak to people directly and without the use of a factually inaccurate book. Yet philosophies that grant people access to those spiritual experiences are commonly regarded as "sinful".

5. The "we are all evil and we are without hope if it were not for god" is just plain creepy. I dated someone who was self-loathing and used the Bible to justify that line of thinking, such an attitude is beyond my ability to understand. I also attended a cool church and a creepy church. Amazing how the two contrasted each other. I tend to gravitate towards philosophies that assume that man is at least a *little* good. Why create a species just to watch it suffer? Simply does not make sense.

6. The belief that Christianity is the only way is a paradox. You belief that your way of thinking just as strongly as someone of another faith. If they don't convert, they are punished. If you don't convert you are punished. There is no way to determine which is correct. +1-1=0. The Many Paths scenario removes that philosophical landmine.

7. Christ dieing for our sins makes very, very, very, very, very little sense if you think about it critically. People regard the Trinity as being different forms of the same entity. God is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Those three are God. So why would God send himself down to sacrifice himself to himself to convince himself to change the rules that he himself put into place? Seriously? The sacrifice was for what? Just to be resurrected and made a deity while already being a deity? Was anything really lost in this sacrifice?


So yeah. After six months of digging I remain unconvinced... however I haven't a problem with the more progressive denominations. Something about attending church services where you are not required to subscribe to the things that make little or no sense is just very appealing. So much so that I am participating in a mission trip to Jolpin, and the church is so open armed they do not require me to be a believer to participate nor do they have an issue with a state of agnosticism. Which in stark contrast to the series of absolutely ridiculous "well, no TRUE Christian would ever.... [whatever]" threads that seems so fun as of late.

There are "Good Christians" out there, they just need to refrain from using the Bible (and especially the Old Testament) as a means to justify their own bigotries.

 

Don't you think that only cynical scoundrels pretend to believe these various contradictory texts are absolutely true? Real Christians gave up all that nonsense long since, surely?

 

I guess I am not quite understanding the question.

 

I don't think christians or Jews advocate death for Homos.
They want silence about sex, in general, from every memebr of iour society in the name of saving the young people from the fires of Molech as they are now encouraged to walk into adulthood after 14 years of a very dangerous Sexual Promiscuity, and a socielly distructive abusing to the formative Institution of Marriage.


Nevertheless, the Christians do want to save the Homos from themselves, and from their indoctrination of young boys into Gayness, and from the sin of communicating AIDS/HIV to unsuspecting victims they seduce:








Study: Gays Die 20 Years Younger Than Heteros; Adoptions At Risk?
By Tim Bueler
The Post Chronicle
Mar 31, 2007

Philadelphia -- "The life span of gays is 20 years shorter than the life span of heterosexuals."

So said Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank....
(Full Story —
The Negative Effects on Health of Homosexuality

By Timothy J. Dailey. An overview of studies examining the state of health of homosexuals. (Off-site) Full Story

By a wide margin, the state of health of homosexuals is not as good as that of heterosexuals. Here is an excerpt:

Reduced Life Span. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:
In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday.
Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

 

Wow, cupid dave, just wow. First off, this is a study about ONE Canadian city. ONE. Secondly, the point of the study was this: "To assess how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men." The entire point of the study was to show that gay and bisexual men had higher mortality rates because of higher rates of HIV and AIDS in the population. Do some (*)(*)(*)(*) research with your own mind instead of blindly following a Christian conservative thinktank.

Check out THIS admission in their study: "Second, the pattern of non-HIV mortality for gay and bisexual men may be distinctly different from that
exhibited by all men."

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.full.pdf

 

Until I was well in my twenties, having been brought up an Anglican, I had never even heard of anyone who took the whole of the Bible literally, or valued evey bit of it at the same level. I can only suppose those who pretend to believe such nonsense are cynical liars.

 

Crash and burn.

 

I don't believe anyone actually takes the entire piece literally, you simply can't.

 

Whereas these studies are necessarily local in their testings, they are corralated with other studies that show the results are Global in their content.

I would even say that common sense should imply to Gays that their almost universal behavior inherent in what they recognize as The Life suggests they will fare no better than Canadian Gays.


Nevertheless, the suicide and murder inherent in the Homosexuals who have lobbied against tracking recent sexual partners of newly infected HIV/AIDS victims portents the plague to be visited upon the Staright Americans who in apathy, have allowed such repression of the danger to exist in the Media:

AIDS/HIV has been doubling every seven years in America:

2001 = 1,000,000 HIV/AIDS Carriers

2008 = 2,000,000 HIV/AIDS Carriers

2015 = 4,000,000 HIV/AIDS Carriers

2022 = 8,000,000 HIV/AIDS Carriers

2029 = 16,000,000 HIV/AIDS Carriers

2036 = 32,000,000 HIV/AIDS Carriers

2042 = 64,000,000 HIV/AIDS Carriers

2049 = 128,000,000 HIV/AIDS Carriers

2056 = 256,000,000 HIV/AIDS Carriers

2063 = 512,000,000 HIV/AIDS Carriers

 

Sure one can.

The King who wants a divorce can say no, and invent Anglicism, or the Gays can void man on man sex as a sin and become priests, but that isn't biblical.

 

Studies don't have to be necessarily local and you cannot just simply apply a case for one city to the entire globe, that is unscientific in every aspect.

And I would say that common sense shouldn't be applied over scientific research.

Ummm... there were only 1.2 million cases of HIV in 2010 according to the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivest

Also, you can't just expect the disease to double every second years.

 

This article is still quoting the 1997 study.
Fail.

 

This thread isn't about posting links to limited studies and conjuring all sorts of fun conclusions from them.

Its better suited for a different thread.

 

I take it literally

 

Enough said.
Do you know where I can buy a talking donkey? My daughter wants one for her birthday. Thanks.

 

Which means you probably contradict yourself.

 

I know lutherans do, some synods anyway. I grew up in one. The entire bible is 100% the literal inspired word of God. No exceptions. I didn't know any different for many many years.

 

So how do they explain the two Easter stories?

 

Gee, this is going to be interesting!

There are so many twists and turns that can be taken in such a discussion. The context as far as I know is something like this: "first the physical, then the spiritual. Nothing can be taken literally from the bible, but everything has a spiritual connotation, or is simply an analogy but with real meanings. The OT was the physical representation and The new the fulfillment of the old through a spiritual context. Harshness is excessive under old testament law, and even in reference to homosexuality. There had to be a context regarding the circumstances surrounding sodom and gomorrah and this is where Christian beliefs become a bit of a paradox. The catholic bible may be different, i don't know, but the Protestant bible follows the very path of Jesus, both explicitly and implicitly from genesis right through.

I believe this why some books were removed, because the line of Jesus wasn't evident, therefore not considered appropriate. Man apparently wrote the books by divine inspiration.

it all depends on the interpretation. The old and the new are entirely different systems of governance for want of a better word. The new simplifies the old and is covered by grace rather than judgement due to Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice.

god is spirit, they that worship him must worship him in spirit. Physical forms of communication aren't pertinent to someone that is spirit. Jesus was sent in the physical form.

absolutely! There is such a twisted take on God , that many use Christianity as a tool of control even today. Fear is the ploy to control? Anyone that preaches fear and condemnation is wrong! Jesus gave simple messages but never condemned anyone!

I think there are churches have become too commercial, therefore are in a battle ground not for souls but for mammon. The constant jousting between various denominations is farcical!

God couldn't look upon sin, therefore couldn't look upon people. This is one of the massive differences between nt and OT. OT required constant sacrificing of animals to cover sin, where Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice.

The whole churches mission is to reach out to the lost, but not in a condemning manner. If people want to go to church and not commit themselves and aren't causing any hassles, what is the problem.

Absolutely! This is where Christianity has lost so must friction, and wonder why other beliefs are outgrowing them, because they fail to fulfill the word in its fullness! OT is pertinent in terms of the premise of the nt but not the guide on how we should live our lives today.

 

such as?

 

The King whose obviously incestuous marriage was kept in being for political reasons by a Empire-dominated Bishop of Rome can withdraw at long last from an artificial and imposed nonsense pushed on a Christian country by the crook Augustine, yes. What the rest of your post may mean the Pope probably knows: I don't.

 

The Bible contradicts itself if read literally.

 

Including the parts where it says the Earth is flat, pi is equal to 3, pigeon blood cures leprosy, and that hundred of stars will fall onto the Earth (when every star is larger than the Earth)?