CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE

[innerlight]

Originally Posted by amy green

You've missed out the biggest contradiction. The difference in the angry Hebrew God of the Old Testament (to be feared) compared to the God of love in the New Testament!!!

Perhaps people at the time needed fear as a motivator. Perhaps fear and anger helped them understand their ways, and what was or wasn't "right."

Perhaps as they evolved and grew it was seen that fear and anger were no longer needed and then came the era of love.

[Smiler]

innerlight..Quote: Perhaps people at the time needed fear as a motivator. Perhaps fear and anger helped them understand their ways, and what was or wasn't "right."

Perhaps as they evolved and grew it was seen that fear and anger were no longer needed and then came the era of love. __


Great view :) and insightful of times

Originally Posted by innerlight

Perhaps people at the time needed fear as a motivator. Perhaps fear and anger helped them understand their ways, and what was or wasn't "right."

Perhaps as they evolved and grew it was seen that fear and anger were no longer needed and then came the era of love.

I'd caution against seeing one point of view being more "evolved" than the other. Cultural values are subjective, and it can cause misunderstanding if one uses their own cultural, and personal perspectives as an objective yardstick.

I'd see the whole God of fear and God of love dichotomy to be based in the respective societies that produced the Hebrew and Christian Bible, respectively. The ancient Israelites were a semi-nomadic people who lived in a harsh environment and were subject to all kinds of oppression and dangers. God as an avenger and dispenser of justice would've meant more social cohesion and a sense of having a powerful ally in their corner.

While Christians, who tended to be heretical Jews and converted gentiles, who were usually lower class in an urban environment, where social inequity was commonplace, and the traditional religion(s) were seen as being entwined with the social order itself, and thus could be impersonal. Early Christians (could've, probably. maybe) needed a more personal, concerned God that would save them from their anomic living conditions (which can be seen in the rise of mystery cults and savior gods in the Hellenistic Era of the Roman Empire).

Of course, it's far from that clear cut, but I do think it's an interesting perspective to consider.

Heh, sorry, innerlight, I don't really mean this as aimed all at you, just some general muses on the subject I felt like putting forth.

[Smiler]

quote “to err is human.”

Contradiction still exists not only in religion ..its in science ..and all forms including the individual ..Don't we contradict ourselves are we grow into our new ways of thinking ..?

Thought then action ..Action then Thought.

:)

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by innerlight

Perhaps people at the time needed fear as a motivator. Perhaps fear and anger helped them understand their ways, and what was or wasn't "right."

Perhaps as they evolved and grew it was seen that fear and anger were no longer needed and then came the era of love.

I really like that, it does make a lot of sense, its like when we sort of make up scary stories to make our children do something that we want them to do.

I think that if we take everything in the bible literally it does seem to contradict itself, because it was never meant to be taken that way at all.

[Seawolf]

Originally Posted by amy green

To me they are 2 different Gods - the Old Testament God is a god of anger and the New Testament God is a god of love....you couldn't get more stark contrasts. Can you explain how this can possibly be reconciled/squared? I pity a would-be Christian having to contend with this dilemma.

I think it fits in well with the way people are, I mean we first feel the wrath, then later forgiveness. It's a reflection of how we are.

[innerlight]

Originally Posted by Animus27

I'd caution against seeing one point of view being more "evolved" than the other. Cultural values are subjective, and it can cause misunderstanding if one uses their own cultural, and personal perspectives as an objective yardstick.

I'd see the whole God of fear and God of love dichotomy to be based in the respective societies that produced the Hebrew and Christian Bible, respectively. The ancient Israelites were a semi-nomadic people who lived in a harsh environment and were subject to all kinds of oppression and dangers. God as an avenger and dispenser of justice would've meant more social cohesion and a sense of having a powerful ally in their corner.

While Christians, who tended to be heretical Jews and converted gentiles, who were usually lower class in an urban environment, where social inequity was commonplace, and the traditional religion(s) were seen as being entwined with the social order itself, and thus could be impersonal. Early Christians (could've, probably. maybe) needed a more personal, concerned God that would save them from their anomic living conditions (which can be seen in the rise of mystery cults and savior gods in the Hellenistic Era of the Roman Empire).

Of course, it's far from that clear cut, but I do think it's an interesting perspective to consider.

Heh, sorry, innerlight, I don't really mean this as aimed all at you, just some general muses on the subject I felt like putting forth.

Evolve means to develop gradually.. We all evolve in some way in our life. We evolve as we go from children to adults.

Right and wrong are perspectives, just like good and evil are as well. So to say one way is right, would be debatable. Just like say eating meat is wrong and not eating meat is better.

Evolved is a broad term, that was used as a general statement and was not a statement of this evolution being better then the other evolution.

It's also possible to say the bible was written in the tones of the people that were writing it. So perhaps to them they only see this God, and others saw a different God. When Jesus became God maybe that allowed people to see God differently and more personally. Instead of seeing God further away and only feeling God when a natural disaster hit.

Then again maybe we are so attached to our human lives that we see tragedy as being the end of the world, instead of seeing life as a brief moment of existence and returning to the realms of spirit as better then human life.

[innerlight]

Originally Posted by psychoslice

I really like that, it does make a lot of sense, its like when we sort of make up scary stories to make our children do something that we want them to do.

I think that if we take everything in the bible literally it does seem to contradict itself, because it was never meant to be taken that way at all.

I think any kid can agree that at times their parents are mean, and monsters, when they punish their kids by sending them to their room or in cases of old spanking of bottoms.

What bothers me the most is not the contradictions or holes, but of how people deal with the information in the bible. Some defend it blindly as truth, others use it to back up their claims regardless if it's relevant.

But what gets to me is that God is only God if he's doing what YOU approve. It's all over in the bible that he will make people do things that is widely unaccepted or widely disliked but today in this day and age, if you say God tells you to do something that they don't approve, then it's the devil, not God. Well, tell me this then, if that's true then why does God have to do what THEY approve? That's what ticks me off the most, my own family does this. If they like it, it's God's work, if they don't like it, it's the Devil's work. But if it's in their life not anyone else's (this goes for a LOT of people, not just my relatives) then it's all God's work, he does mysterious things, he does things we don't comprehend, but if he turns around and does something in the same light for someone else, then it's the Devil, not God.

Originally Posted by amy green

Very well argued and depicted Mind's Eye. I can see you have been through a lot and it is good to see you are a truth seeker. Well done for daring to stand up for your findings - you have my respect!

Thank you amy green... I have enjoyed your contributions to this discussion as well.

I was inspired to write this post because I have recently seen several people on the forum asking for spiritual advice and help; and all they got was beat over the head with the Bible and told why their questions/opinions were foolish. I know from my past experiences, (many moons ago,) that that kind of thing can be hurtful and harmful... So I just wanted to show the Bible folks that no system of belief is perfect and flawless.

We can all make arguments against other people's opinions if we want to, and some of those arguments are not easily refuted by pat religious answers that have been proven false by many a inquiring minds.... I think the key word here is respect. If your going to swoop in and tell someone that their beliefs are wrong and they are sinning against God's ultimate truth by not believing every literal word of the Bible, or some other book; you had better have the concrete facts to back that statement up. The days of throwing out loosely held together ideas that have been espoused by religious leaders that have edited facts to prove their point are long gone.

The sheep mentality of the common person is passing away rapidly, and this is why organized religion is having a rough time in this day and age. I am not saying that there isn't merit and gems of truth in Christianity; I just think it has to be presented differently. Telling horror stories of hell and re-writing history to try and scare or trick people into behaving and believing is not working anymore, for obvious reasons. And I don't understand why some religious leaders and organizations seem to want to hold onto those old ways of doing and being. They are doing more harm for their cause than good... But I guess for some, power and control are not easily relinquished.