Can a person believe that the Bible contradicts itself and be a Christian?

by booker-t 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Are you having interactions?

    Insightful

    Since your interaction would be from a different perspective, the insight gained would likely be varied and different. You might also draw quite different conclusions.

    Accurate

    As accurate as you (or they) could interpret and record it. Ultimately it's not very accurate at all, as it loses something in the medium (as does this form of communication). The light goes on when you recognise something of another's experience that is akin to your own - as we have all experienced on this forum regarding the JW's, even if we can't always follow the precise experiences of some.

    Valid

    It's validity surely stems from the accuracy of interpretation and recording. I don't know exactly what those individuals experienced, but it does validate much of my own experience ex-post-facto. I'm talking here in a biographical sense of "God".

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    Booker-t -

    This thread is going to get very long with all the questions that you propse here. I would just like to add my perspective on a single item in your agenda.

    You stated;

    The bible condemns "witchcraft" and all forms of sorcery and spiritism but Jehovah allowed his prophet Saul to go to the witch on Endor and she conjured up the spirit of Samuel(1 sam 28:15) was Jehovah condoning witchcraft for the moment and forgot about the old testament law?

    I accept the Bible in all respects. I know that many will argue that point from a philisophical or alternate point of view - but that is not my point here.

    In several of your points - not to be condemning - just pointing to the facts - there seems to be some level of unneccessary anxiety. In the account you mention above, I would respond that you seem to have somehow shifted the blame for Saul's misdeeds to Jehovah. Remember that by this point -and several years earlier - Jehovah had rejected Saul - and selected David to be king. Saul was not a 'prophet' of God, and there is no indication that God condoned his actions here. True, Jehovah did not strike Saul dead on the spot. But niether did he do so with the sins of others - Judah's whore mongering for example, or David's sin with Bathsheeba, or Aaron's making of an idol and presenting it to national worship.

    In this account, Saul was already showing his animosity toward God's arrangement with David - even seeking to kill him - but certainly God did not condone that, did He? The record of events does not mean that God was to blame for all things that occured.

    I think that several of your OT events could be looked at a little closer to see that God was not the blame for them, but did allow them to occur.

    Just my opinion -

    Jeff

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Jeff:

    I think that several of your OT events could be looked at a little closer to see that God was not the blame for them, but did allow them to occur.

    I concur.
    It's a common objection to state that since it is alleged that God can do something about a situation that He should interfere.

    I'd posit another situation: If an individual is hell-bent on killing themselves, though deemed mentally healthy enough not to be incarcerated, is it possible to stop them? Should we actually interfere with what they see as their right? I ask, not so much to discuss this ethical dilemma but merely to point out that there's a variety of opinions on the correct course of action. I suspect the same in the case of "God", and what He might choose to do or not do in any given situation.

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff
    I suspect the same in the case of "God", and what He might choose to do or not do in any given situation.

    Good point, Ross.

    In any number of situations as presented in the Bible we could postulate that a better outcome could have been achieved if God had done this or done that - what would have happened if God had not let John the Baptist' head be removed?

    I am not of the 'school of All things happen for a reason'. Perhaps some do, and some do not. But God may just allow the human race to race on - up to a point.

    Jeff

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Jeff:

    I am not of the 'school of All things happen for a reason'. Perhaps some do, and some do not. But God may just allow the human race to race on - up to a point.

    I am of the school of "All things happen for a reason", and yet it appears that "God" just lets us get on with it, for the most part. Whether there will be a point at which he cataclismically interferely before we either pollute ourselves into oblivion or the sun goes supernova, I honestly couldn't comment...
    ...I logically don't see how interfering in this kind of way would be any better than say interfering before WW1, WW2, or Hiroshima, etc...
    Maybe one day we'll find out what it was all about.
    But then again, if the atheists are correct, maybe not. But then noone would be around to smirk...

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost
    I am of the school of "All things happen for a reason"

    Ooh yes! and isn't that what the Bible teaches?

    "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." - Romans 8:28 (NIV)

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Ozzie:LOL - I've seen too many "coincidences" to ignore it.

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost

    Ah yes, those "coincidences"!!!!!!

    One of my teachers put it this way "there's no such thing as coincidence".

    I wonder how many would agree with him?

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Hi Ross,

    I would identify a Christian as being one who has a relationship with Christ. IMHO, to be a post-Christian in that sense would be to reject the person, after first of all having befriended him...

    I think I get your point. To be a Christian in the 21st century would then require both a mediate ("post-Christian," or "second-hand") and immediate (experiential, or first-hand) relationship with Christ. No one can ignore the mediations of Scripture and tradition to what we call "our faith". And no one can escape the issue of personal commitment with "him" either.

    I think one of the main differences between us at the present stage of our respective paths is that I hold the "Christ" to which I can have both kinds of relationships as more than a "person". Even if there was ever a "historical Jesus" (I'm not so sure about this anymore), it is not to him that we (and I do mean you too ) can be related. Our personal commitment (or the lack thereof) is as well, and even more, to the literary character of the Gospels, and to the mythical saviour of both Pauline and Johannine literature (for example).

    So if I can call myself a "Christian" and at the same time state that I don't believe in the monotheistic "God", and acknowledge Jesus as a mostly literary and mythical character (which I do love btw), all right. But I sincerely doubt most Christians would accept such a loose use of their label, so I think more honest to them not to claim it.

  • logical
    logical

    What is the basis of the teachings of a Christian? The Bible. Where else? Apart from those who claim to speak for God / Christ, nowhere. So basically what sense does it make to base your entire belief system on a book that is not only contradictory, but evil? Can you trust a liar, a hypocrite? Dont forget WHO compliled the current cannon... the corrupt and "apostate" Catholic church. Whatever truth the scriptures contained is distorted now. The bible is a collection of distorted scriptures, propaganda, chronicles written down by men, and some outright bullshit. The bible has an agenda and that is to draw people as far from the true God, who is most definitely not the one in that twisted book. You will then come to realise, what if Christ is not actually real, or he is a red herring, or even the devil? Where else can you find "evidence" of Christ, besides the people who claim to speak to him and the bible? How can you truly know what parts of the bible are real and those that are not? It is impossible.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit