Religion: If You Don't Believe In It Why Does It Bother You?

How does one rectify the statement that the Bible is infallible with the fact the Bible directly contradicts itself?

There are many places where the Bible's inconsistencies can be argued away as theologically vague. But there are also literally hundreds of places where the Bible contradicts itself on matters which are not, such as troop counts, quotes, census figures, and timing issues:

---------------------------------

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli.

----------------------------------

Isn't getting Jesus' lineage consistent kind of an important detail?

Who went to the tomb and discovered the resurrection? The gospels contradict each other on this. (MAT 28:1, MAR 16:1, JOH 20:1)

Why are census figures and military troop counts for the same event different from one book to the next?

Was Jesus' first sermon on flat plains (LUK 6:17,20) or a mount? (MAT 5:1,2)

There are two possibilities:

- The Bible is not infallible. It suffers from translation errors and/or parts of it were written by humans with imperfect recollection.

- The Bible is still infallible, but our understanding is incomplete and flawed by our own interpretation.

Most people prefer the second alternative as a way to avoid considering the first, but if our only way of interpreting it is fatally flawed by nature of our own humanity, why is it any more valuable as a source of truth for humans than anything else?

This is my take on religion. So we are lead to believe there is a God. In the beginning there was adam and eve. They lived in the garden of Eden which was a paradise where they needed to do nothing but enjoy living there. The ONLY thing they were not to do is eat from this one tree.
They ate from the tree and was tossed out of the garden of eden. Since then ppl of the world has been struggling with life and we have all these sickness and poverty and such.
The Bible also says to forgive. Why has God not forgiven man for what he has done but instead leaves the people of the world to suffer.

Just one big game of telephone if you ask me. Except spoken across several dozen people with a simple message, you have a complex one spoken upon million/billions. We're gonna get some crazy results in the end.

cause he's *** Eddy Izzard, man

@Mickeyc's 99% NA comment- is that because the rest of the world believes one way or the other and they no longer need to debate it?

No one should ignore the above contradiction - it cracks the whole thing open. All people have the capacity for clear insight like this.

To answer the question, it's because the church wants you to not question. Shut up and obey, sinner.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a huge gap in the writing of the bible and when the events inside it actually happened?

The above explanation that ended my last post may have been isolating for a few people who belong to the church.

Let me reconsider my response. It's important to consider how the Church may or may not benefit from any one of its teachings, and contradictions like the one cited by Hatekhaos are red flags of this kind of selfishness being present. That doesn't necessarily mean all parts should be tossed out.

For instance, the story of the Garden of Eden gives us some insight into humanity. Asking ourselves how it might be able to make sense for our present moment, it could be a way of expressing our feelings towards the perceived corruption of our innocence, that is, Eden is our childhood in purity with ignorance, while after having gained experience, we find that pure state almost impossible to regain.

It's also important to investigate where a myth might be wrong, since myths are made by people. Thus it is the creator's perception of reality that guides the storytelling process. For instance, the assumption that it is impossible to reenter Eden within the myth can be uncovered as false in real life. The myth teaches people to accept the loss of Eden, instead of searching for a way to reach Eden again, thus making the Garden of Eden myth, in even just that respect, potentially harmful.


If you read my post on Original Sin, you'll find that it's also very advantageous to the church to keep claiming it to be the truth. If every person were to know that they are able to pursue a higher state of being without any help from the church, the church would collapse. Yes, even though people would be better off not believing in the lie called Original Sin, the church puts its own interests above the people's.


These ideas are applicable across religions, so even if you are not familiar with Christianity, understanding how one religion works helps you to gain insight into the truth behind religion in general, because it sharpens your awareness.

New Testament? About 100 years after, give or take for the Gospels.

Old Testament, gets up to 1000s of years after the 'events'. They were originally oral traditions.

A second story I have a problem with from the Bible is about the old lady who went into the church and when the offering came she gave all the money she had yet the wealthy man only gave a small amount, the old lady was allowed into the kingdom of heaven(cant remember the exact details here). I take this as the church saying you need to give alot of money for your Sunday offering... However I can also see it as whatever you give you give from the heart and whole heartily will benefit you more in the afterlife. Who is to say the person who doesnt give all but give what they can afford is not giving it out of the goodness in their heart.

Edit: I do believe in religion (Christianity) but these are just some conflicts I have with it

Sorry, that I missed the sentence after that.

After reading your post again, it still doesn't make any sense. It just sounds like you're trying to say that religious people are racist, which is completely insane. By the way, what do you mean "further explanation"? You didn't explain your example in your last two posts, so how could you further explain it? Please, tell us what you are getting at.

How can you be certain that religion is not an integral part of your life? If you group other people together and put yourself and the group of those nearby to you in a position of superiority, maybe you are, unknowingly, a part of the religion of "the modern world"?

Everyone should ask themselves: what is modern about this modern world? Maybe the technology is modern, but are our minds? So many people carry around a heavy load, you could call it "emotional baggage" or just weight. Some people carry around a HUGE load - it seems more like the mind is still ancient, full of dust, clutter, stress, and ego. Does jumping on board with ideas present in our modern culture make you modern? No.

If you want to be modern, then try to live in the present moment, completely. It's a very difficult task, but with practice, it's possible and WILL happen.

Those without religion often are as unwilling to understand it as those with religion are unwilling to understand what it means to live without it. Each religion views itself, no matter how sympathetic, as the best.

So by claiming to be the better by being without religion, aren't you saying that you are still trapped by it? You may not hear it, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth giving it your deepest consideration.

The story says both. By using the church as the setting and money as the means of the transaction, it's warping the true meaning of giving from the heart. It's like the double barreled question.

If I were to ask you, "Do you want to give all your money to the church and get to heaven?" it's unfair because two things are being asked in one yes/no question. Likewise, the story teaches that cherishing money is bad, but offers only giving money AT CHURCH as the alternative.

As has been said in previous posts, it's important to consider the good things in religion, but the religion itself isn't needed at all. While it may seem that they are connected, it's only because religions have become adept at lying - conflating the good, spiritual dimension of their teachings, with the bad, which seeks to draw people in and keep them there. Keep examining without fear, and at one point you will come to the place where you can be free from religions without throwing out the spiritual dimension.

Unfortunately.. religion promotes racism, often unconsciously.

This is because religion promotes supremacy, or the idea that the religion is better or closer to the truth than all others. Thus participates live with an acceptance of a supremacist mindset, making it easy to feel better than other people based on any manner of arbitrary differences, such as race, wealth, fame, etc.

So even though most religions say to treat others with openness, peace, and love, religions are in their very existence proving themselves to stand for the opposite.

I'm not trying to say that all religious people are racist. I was trying to use an example of something that would very obviously have effects on everyone around them.

I'll use a few different examples this time.

I am not religious, so why should it matter if I want to purchase alcohol on a Sunday?

I want to learn about sex education. All they teach is abstinence.

I want to go to the bank on December 25th, but I can't.

You may not see it but religion is tied into everything. I can't do the things I want to because of the rules and restrictions imposed by religious people. That is why it bothers me.

I agree that religion has lead to horrible atrocities and genocides through out the ages. I present the flip-side to that argument with , the Khymer Rouge who persecuted religion and murdered several million of their countrymen. As much as we love to blame religion for all it's faults ideologies, and people are what cause heinous acts.

Arguing about something that cannot be proven is simply HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE, it is screaming at a tree; kinda fun but pointless.

Also Atheism is the lack of belief in all religions, it is not a religion based of the definition of the word. So why are atheists actively recruiting, isn't that against the general credo of being an atheist?

omg O.o

a rational well thought out post on a religion thread?

what will they think of next

Lmao, not the sharpest tool in the shed eh?

Nothing about his post suggests that religious people are racist, he gives a hypothetical scenario to try and flesh out what he's saying. Wow.. just wow.

Eddie Izzard FTW... Most certianly livened up this thread IMO, for sure!!! I'm sure that everyone after long debates that this type of humor after 24 25 26 pages of banter, that this made everyone have a chuckle...

Okay, I see what you are saying now. Those were MUCH better explanations. I do agree, to a certain extent, on some of what you're saying.

It is an inconvenience to not be able to buy alcohol on Sundays, although they don't enforce that everywhere now. Things ARE changing. But, like most things in the government, it's just taking a really long time.

Now, about Sex Education... In public schools, teachers are not legally allowed to say that having sex before marriage is a sin anymore. They will tell them about STDs and such, but that is something that everyone should be warned about. The only time you will hear a teacher legally say that it is a sin is when it is inside of a religiously affiliated school. While I do think that one of the major reasons we have abstinence programs in schools is because of religious influence, I don't think that it is only due to it. Personally, I just think that most parents wouldn't want their kids having sex before marriage for the simple reason that most don't want their kids to be single parents. (And most parents don't want to know about their child's sex life or even know that they have one.) Why would most parents want to watch their kid struggle being a single parent, when it's hard enough being married and having kids.

As far as not being able to do what you what because of religious influences goes, it does go both ways to a certain extent. If I wanted to pray at school, I wouldn't be able to because it's against the rules (at least where I live). Although, to tell you the true, I would probably never pray at my college anyway, since most Atheists would look at me like I'm a weird or something.

I just wish that everyone was more tolerable of each other in the world. Everyone is too easily offended and/or irritated by each other. We just need to learn that everyone is different than everyone else, and just except the fact that nobody has all of the same views as another. Everyone is their own individual and nobody has the right to try and change another person.

P.S: I am not really for trying to convert others into my religion, because it is not my place to do so. If they are curious and/or want to believe, then I am happy for them. I let people believe what they want, because I want them to do the same for me. I want them to know that the majority of Christians are actually good people. People usually don't notice the Christians that keep to themselves and mind their own business, because it's only the smaller percentage that are self-righteous and in your face. They make the rest of us look bad...

Answered with one question: How do you know?


If it's because you heard or read it, no one can count it as valid. If it's coming from the inside out, that's a different story.

Also, God is not male. Or rather, the concept we have of God as being male is one that works only to perpetuate male-dominance in society.

The Antichrist is a made up concept, but it reflects the tendency of human beings to "worship false idols" - the hypothetical Antichrist is someone who would take advantage of that. But its presence in our vocabulary does more to evoke needless fear than it does true understanding. Again, it's a tactic that undermines the individual's ability to perceive things as they really are. Instead, it coaxes them into believing postulations deemed "prophecies" by long-gone generations.

An example of an anti-religious religion. Just because someone describes something one way doesn't mean it can't be understood better through a different description.

Furthermore, all religions are not equal. Some are more wrong than others. For instance, often what we call "cults" have much more obvious harmful elements that the members buy in to, while "religion" normally is connotative of mostly good ideas being taught.

And also, at other times, if religion is dropped without understanding, it will leave a deep scar on the person. So these ideas must always be considered with care.

23 Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was,
of Joseph,
[son] of He′li,
24 [son] of Mat′that,
[son] of Le′vi,
[son] of Mel′chi,
[son] of Jan′na‧i,
[son] of Joseph,
25 [son] of Mat‧ta‧thi′as,
[son] of A′mos,
[son] of Na′hum,
[son] of Es′li,
[son] of Nag′ga‧i,
26 [son] of Ma′ath,
[son] of Mat‧ta‧thi′as,
[son] of Sem′e‧in,
[son] of Jo′sech,
[son] of Jo′da,
27 [son] of Jo‧an′an,
[son] of Rhe′sa,
[son] of Ze‧rub′ba‧bel,
[son] of She‧al′ti‧el,
[son] of Ne′ri,
28 [son] of Mel′chi,
[son] of Ad′di,
[son] of Co′sam,
[son] of El‧ma′dam,
[son] of Er,
29 [son] of Jesus,
[son] of E‧li‧e′zer,
[son] of Jo′rim,
[son] of Mat′that,
[son] of Le′vi,
30 [son] of Sym′e‧on,
[son] of Judas,
[son] of Joseph,
[son] of Jo′nam,
[son] of E‧li′a‧kim,
31 [son] of Me′le‧a,
[son] of Men′na,
[son] of Mat′ta‧tha,
[son] of Nathan,
[son] of David,
32 [son] of Jes′se,
[son] of O′bed,
[son] of Bo′az,
[son] of Sal′mon,
[son] of Nah′shon,
33 [son] of Am‧min′a‧dab,
[son] of Ar′ni,
[son] of Hez′ron,
[son] of Pe′rez,
[son] of Judah,
34 [son] of Jacob

ect, ect.

Begat:
–plural nounInformal.
genealogical lists, esp. those in the Old Testament.

Your opening argument has me scratching my head, quite honestly.


They all say that Mary Magdalene were present.
Two (Mark 16:1, Matthew 28:1) say that Mary Magdalene and another Mary were present.
One (Mark 16:1) said that Mary Magdalene, also other Mary and Salome were present.

I'll see you your 3 women and add a 4th: Joanna.

Luke 24:10 - They were the Mag′da‧lene Mary, and Jo‧an′na, and Mary the [mother] of James. Also, the rest of the women with them were telling the apostles these things.

You can Cross-reference for who Joanna is at Luke 8:3 - and Jo‧an′na the wife of Chu′za, Herod’s man in charge, and Su‧san′na and many other women, who were ministering to them from their belongings.

The accounts, while seemingly naming different people present, don't contradict each other. If you read on in the accounts, every one of them agrees that it was multiple women who found Jesus grave empty.

Think of it this way:
You're a cop called out to the scene of an accident, everybody you get statements from has their own specific details that they'll each remember.
Just because the details are slightly different between the people doesn't actually mean you're being lied too about what happened.
They're all telling you the same story, just people pick up and remember different things that are important to them.

Also, as a side note, if a Cop happens to get the exact same story word for word from multiple people, investigations into Insurance Fraud usually begins.


Can you be more specific please?


You just didn't go back far enough in that same chapter of Luke to see:
Luke 6:12 - In the progress of these days he went out into the mountain to pray, and he continued the whole night in prayer to God.

Both Matthew and Luke state that Jesus gave his Sermon on a Mount.
However it wasn't just his Disciples present for the sermon, but a vast crowd of people as well. (Matthew 7:28 - Now when Jesus finished these sayings, the effect was that the crowds were astounded at his way of teaching;)
So Luke is correct in bringing out that a flat surface was used for his Sermon, as there were so many people present and the Sermon itself seems to be pretty long, undoubtedly the people hearing it would prefer sitting to standing.


I'm not here to argue semantics. Nor is it my goal to force anybody to understand whats in there, nobody likes having something they really don't care for forced onto them. If you want further clarification or have other questions PM me.

Yay, more study procrastination!
Atheism doesn't have credos. The trend towards more active and militant atheism is called "New" Atheism by some, though I prefer to speak about and discuss religion than to outright dismiss it as totally harmful, if for no other reason than because it stymies dialogues when you go around insulting people.
Original sin was something that really broke my faith when I thought about it. Original sin is based on the idea that sin and the causation of mankind's suffering is the original sin of Adam and Eve disobeying God. But that story is so obviously a fairy tale, an origin story nearly identical to just about every other creation myth in every culture.

In Christianity, the idea is that Jesus cleanses us of all our sins, and that we have original sin taken away by being born again. But if the origin story is an obvious myth, then the concept of original sin seems shakey.

You mention it in different terms, Mabrook, which doesn't change the fact that you're still basing it on primordial disobedience. I'll point out that 1) it is obviously not a literal story; 2) it's still unfair for offspring to be punished for something their parents or ancestors did.
Reading your posts, you talk about people taking responsibility and having free will. I think your above statement creates a fairly glaring logical problem, though:
-God is all knowing, therefore he designed the world knowing how it would progress throughout time
-When humans commit a sin, you say it was their free will to do so, and that your religion teaches taking responsibility (which is good)
-BUT if God is all knowing, then when he creates each human life, he knows for certain that they would commit sins and knows what they would do to atone for those sins. Furthermore, he knows who will NOT atone for them. Not only does he know this, but as an all-knowing being, he planned for it since the time of creation, making free will an illusion.
-This is exacerbated by him being "all powerful," because he could prevent sins or create a world where people had free will but did not want to sin... if he could not, then he is not all powerful. And if he didn't know how to do so, he was not all-knowing.
-If he knew he was setting people up to sin (including original sin), and he could stop it, but did not, then he is not wholly loving, since he freely let human misery in this life and the afterlife come to be.
Anye, I have a genuine question... are you a Universalist, in that case? As in, do you believe that all people can or will eventually get into Heaven? I'm not sure I'm understanding your last few posts right if not.

Arguing Biblical contradictions is pointless. Even if there were no contradicting passages, the possibility exists for lies or falsehoods. The only way to understand the truth of it is through investigation.

In the case of historical events this might be by archeological investigation (or second-hand research of such investigation), but the vast majority of the particularities must have their truth discovered through self-investigation and inquiry into the true nature of what's written.

Take nothing at face value. Nor reject it at that. Dare to look deeper.

First problem with the passage mentioned: "our" and "the whole world" are separated, implying a distinction that more naturally favors the "we". Is the whole world so different than the "we" group?

More importantly, how do you explain anyone taking care of the sins of the world? ... Is it not true that we have the responsibility of taking care of our own sins, if they exist?

The way in which I see the concept of "Christ saving us from our sins" bearing any fruit of truth, was that he could be considered as giving others the spiritual tools to save themselves, that is, to figure out why sins are bad within themselves and to not want them, and live in such a way that Jesus may have, without sin or the desire for sin (or the desire to not have sin as well).

But since saying "I can be Jesus' spiritual equal" is tantamount to blasphemy in the Church, people are taught to worship him as an idol. Never mind that actually saying or thinking it aloud might be egotistical, it is nonetheless possible for every single human being. You CAN be Jesus' spiritual equal.

But you're making my point for me, here. Is the Bible the infallible, direct word of God, or is it the pieced together recollections of different people? In this thread we've had people trying to say both simultaneously.

I'm bothered by the double standard of saying everything in the Bible is absolutely infallible, except for the difficult or vague parts. For instance, if I ask why the Commandment "thou shalt not kill" is ignored in the case of war, I get "Oh well, that was a mistranslation, it's actually thou shalt not murder." But if I point out that Mary being a "virgin" rather than merely a "young woman" is quite likely a similar mistranslation, I get my head bitten off because "the Bible is infallible." Well, is the translation process part of that infallibility or not?

Similarly, the census figures in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 explain the same event at the same time, but are completely irreconcilable with one another. Even the most apologetic Biblical scholar agrees that it must be the result of clerical copy errors over the centuries. But if we're willing to accept that some parts of the Bible are corrupted by human error, what's to say any other part isn't the same?

I'm willing to accept anyone's belief system as equal to any other provided that belief system is internally consistent. But once it breaks internal consistency, it loses all value and meaning to me.