The Bible Contradictions Thread

Flamed Diving

krudler wrote: »

Adam and Eve, right so god creates the first humans on earth who in turn have kids, one is killed, sooooo, doesnt that kind of put a halt to this whole procreation thing? are we all the result of inbreeding from Adam and Eves litter of kids? Not much of a gene pool god built himself there

Apparantly Adam & Eve had "perfect genes", so this means incest worked until it degraded over generations and resulted in infertile incestual offspring. So people had to make do with cousins, then 2nd cousins, etc.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Sam Vimes

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Apparantly Adam & Eve had "perfect genes", so this means incest worked until it degraded over generations and resulted in infertile incestual offspring. So people had to make do with cousins, then 2nd cousins, etc.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Incest: Fun for all the family and now with divine approval

Flamed Diving

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Incest: Fun for all the family and now with divine approval

Ugh. Not for the first time I can claim higher moral tastes than a celestial star-weaver.

krudler

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Apparantly Adam & Eve had "perfect genes", so this means incest worked until it degraded over generations and resulted in infertile incestual offspring. So people had to make do with cousins, then 2nd cousins, etc.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Indeed, especially when you work in how people are different colours, have country specific facial features and the like

Here's one, Jesus was supposedly born of a virgin, no male influence whatsover, now since in nature all embryos are inherently female if there was no sperm involved to carry the chromosome to make him male, shouldnt Jesus have been born a girl? Or is god just able to bypass his own laws of nature and whack whatever kind of person he wants into random women?

Flamed Diving

krudler wrote: »

Indeed, especially when you work in how people are different colours, have country specific facial features and the like

Here's one, Jesus was supposedly born of a virgin, no male influence whatsover, now since in nature all embryos are inherently female if there was no sperm involved to carry the chromosome to make him male, shouldnt Jesus have been born a girl? Or is god just able to bypass his own laws of nature and whack whatever kind of person he wants into random women?

The lord works in mysterious ways...

krudler

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The lord works in mysterious ways...

Pffft, the ultimate religious answer copout thats the deux ex machina of the bible , its the "it was all a dream after all " bad soap opera ending answer

Flamed Diving

krudler wrote: »

Pffft, the ultimate religious answer copout thats the deux ex machina of the bible , its the "it was all a dream after all " bad soap opera ending answer

As Ricky Gervais put it:

"It's the theological equivalent of pointing and saying 'hey, look over there!' and legging it."

krudler

To quote George Carlin:

"Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll to to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money!"

Turtwig

krudler wrote: »

Indeed, especially when you work in how people are different colours, have country specific facial features and the like

Here's one, Jesus was supposedly born of a virgin, no male influence whatsover, now since in nature all embryos are inherently female if there was no sperm involved to carry the chromosome to make him male, shouldnt Jesus have been born a girl? Or is god just able to bypass his own laws of nature and whack whatever kind of person he wants into random women?

Unless, I'm mistaken the idea of all embryos being inherently female is a myth.
Sex is determine somewhere just after conception.
The distinct sexual characteristics though don't become apparent for a while.
I'm not a biologist, so correct me if I'm wrong.

krudler

Malty_T wrote: »

Unless, I'm mistaken the idea of all embryos being inherently female is a myth.
Sex is determine somewhere just after conception.
The distinct sexual characteristics though don't become apparent for a while.
I'm not a biologist, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Ok "inherently female" is up for debate, without getting into complicated biology, the human female eggs are homogametic, which means they contain only 1 sex chromosome, the X chromosome. At this stage, the eggs are genderless. Human male sperm contains either another X chromosome or Y chromosome. Depending on which chromosome is contained in the sperm that fertilizes an egg will determine the sex of the zygote (it becomes an embryo later). If the fertilizing sperm contains an X chromosome, the zygote will be an XX (female), if it contains a Y chromosome it becomes an XY (male). The presence of the Y chromosome will eventually trigger male hormones to be released that will cause the eventual embyro to take on male characterisitics.


you still cant have a human born of a virgin though;)

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

Unless, I'm mistaken the idea of all embryos being inherently female is a myth.
Sex is determine somewhere just after conception.
The distinct sexual characteristics though don't become apparent for a while.
I'm not a biologist, so correct me if I'm wrong.

All eggs from the female are female. Sexual orientation is determined by the fusion of the parents DNA.

So without DNA from his father Jesus should have been a female. But that really is the least of the problems, without DNA from his father Jesus should have been dead as there was no embryo, just the egg from Mary that would have been flushed out during her period.

So one imagines that if we take this story seriously that God must have produced DNA from some where, and thus could have produced male genetic material that would have produced Jesus as a male rather than a female.

krudler

Noah and his floating menagerie, are we really meant to believe that one person gathered 2 of every creature on earth (given that there are about a million different types of insect alone) and loaded them onto a boat? 2 of EVERY creature? as in including the ones only discovered in the past few decades by teams of explorers, a lot of times by complete chance? our buddy Noah was able to find all of these? on one continent? hmmm?

Mark Hamill

krudler wrote: »

Noah and his floating menagerie, are we really meant to believe that one person gathered 2 of every creature on earth (given that there are about a million different types of insect alone) and loaded them onto a boat? 2 of EVERY creature? as in including the ones only discovered in the past few decades by teams of explorers, a lot of times by complete chance? our buddy Noah was able to find all of these? on one continent? hmmm?

Its actually worse than you think, it wasn't two of every animal, it was 2 of each unclean animal and 14 of each clean animal and bird:

Genesis 7 wrote:

Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth

So its quite a bit more animals than people realise.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, provide me evidence that is anything beyond an opinion, and I might regard it as fact. Otherwise, I will regard it as dishonesty.

Malty_T wrote: »

Watch the dam video!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He doesn't actually want evidence, he wants to proclaim that there is none, demand that we provide it and then ignore it when it's presented, just like Wendy Wright

Where is the evidence? It is in the museums. Yes, but show me the evidence. It is in the museums. This seems to be the de facto standard for theist arguments now.

liamw wrote: »

My real point here is that I don't think the Bible gives us ANYTHING.

I think Homer Simpson said it best:

Homer Simpson wrote:

If the bible has taught us anything, which it hasn't...

MrP

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYmfpkIRPhk

Silly mortals...

FishFood

Very interesting discussion here. But I do have to say that I am more then a little shocked that any religious person today would attempt to defend slavery in any form or the genocide of innocent children for the crimes of a few. Or the condemnation of people to eternal torment for, as someone posted earlier, what you would think are minor sins committed in a finite period when compared to eternal life etc.

I would ask the question that if a God does exist that condones this sort of thing, is he/she/it worthy of worship.

I would just also like to pose the question, if it is not a religious belief that our morals stem from evolution/human interaction then would a truly religious person carry out the mass killing of children if say they were to receive instructions from a burning bush today? I would say not, I would say most sane religious people today would dismiss this out of hand as being a hallucination etc and not carry any act out.

Why? Because it goes against all your moral codes I would think. But if these things were done regularly in the Bible/Scripture, why then is it so repugnant? Is it not because we have evolved our own moral code based on human social interaction?

Turtwig

Beat you flamed:p

mardybumbum

Malty_T wrote: »

Unless, I'm mistaken the idea of all embryos being inherently female is a myth.
Sex is determine somewhere just after conception.
The distinct sexual characteristics though don't become apparent for a while.
I'm not a biologist, so correct me if I'm wrong.

You are spot on.
As soon as the Y chromosome ( which contains the SRY gene ) is passed on, the embryo is destined to be a male.*
Even people with XXXXY syndrome are considered male.
The SRY gene is important in testis development which secrete the testosterone.
The mullerian ducts (precursor to female urogenital system) regress under the action of testosterone and the wolffian ducts flourish and develop into the male urogenital system.


* Some females contain a Y chromosome, but these Y chromosomes lack the SRY gene.


I think the information there is correct, but my physiology is a bit rusty at the moment.

Flamed Diving

Malty_T wrote: »

Beat you flamed:p

If linguistics is too... 'thinky' for you.

L:DL

Turtwig

Beat you again Flamed.:p

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj2pwtqxrVQ

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLOXytYQ13I

Good discussion on modern Christians omitting the "less attractive" elements of the Bible.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24uuDa7S2HQ

What does the Bible have to say on your typical day in Heaven?

Flamed Diving

Gee, that Jesus sure was a nice fella...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqMoGfNtVy4

In this episode we look at the central character in Christianity, the figure of Jesus Christ. He mostly crops up in two places in the Bible, in the Gospels and in the Revelation of JC. However when he does turn up in Revelation he is not exactly wearing his 'Prince of Peace' hat... indeed he threatens to make some woman sick, then to kill her children (yup, Jesus Christ, child killer, Revelation 2:23... way to stay classy!). Not content with just threatening to make people sick and to kill their children JC then goes on to say he will give his minions a rod of iron to smash up everyone else. If this character were in any other book, he would fall squarely into the clinically psychotic category!

This is then compared to JC in the Gospels (Luke 19:26), where he commands everyone who disagrees with him to be bought before him and killed. He then goes on to instruct his disciples to go and steal a horse for him. Nice role model!

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ

The Christian tradition has attempted to hold a number of people and things responsible for the execution of Jesus, but analysis reveals that the only one responsible for it is the Christian god.

Isn't it a sin only when a person does something God does NOT want the person to do?

Carl Ginet's "In Defense of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities: Why I Don't Find Frankfurt's Argument Convincing": http://www.jstor.org/pss/2216254

By the way, I've gotten a lot of comments and questions about the notion that Jesus' death should be viewed as a suicide. That seems quite reasonable to me given what appears in the New Testament -- see, e.g., John 10:17-18. Moreover, as Raymond Brown points out in his "The Death of the Messiah", a number of early Christian writers believed Jesus' death to have been miraculous and completely under Jesus' control. See, e.g., Tertullian, who in his Apology claims that on the cross Jesus "with a word expressing his own will dismissed his spirit, forestalling the work of the executioners." In short, Jesus killed himself.

Very clever!

Dades

^^ i.e. Death by Cop

Turtwig

Well flamed seems to have gone AWOl so here are the two videos he would have embedded if he were here.
Where ever you are gone, we hope that all is well. (Which A&A wants to take up the paragraphing responsibility that flamed used to provide for badly composed posts?)