Contradictions In The Bible? (Page 3)

Zanjan
Zanjan: Umm.....last time I looked I was still here, just typing away.
6 years ago Report
0
Crash
Crash: Lol....ooh zan.....you amuse and annoy me at times. But you're simply always good for a laugh. Thank you
(Edited by Crash)
6 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: You're welcome. There's nothing I can't do except lift heavy objects.
6 years ago Report
0
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: Alright, the age of accountability...

It is certainly true that there is nowhere in the Bible that has this. There's nothing at all.

However, Christians do believe (as far as I've seen, and I certainly do) that babies, as well as young children, will not be condemned to Hell if they die.

This is on the basis of the fact that, to be saved, one has to come to an understanding of who Christ is. One has to accept that Jesus is their Saviour, with a sure mind of who He is and what He has done for us.

Obviously, babies cannot do that, and neither can young children. They can't understand the Gospel. Likewise, they are not able to understand what is a sin. They have not yet gained the ability to understand what is morally right and wrong. Hence, it would be very unfair of God to condemn them, when they have not had the opportunity to hear the Gospel and understand it, or repent if they're not yet able to have definite moral views.

The same goes for those with things like severe mental disabilities. We base such views on the fact that they are not able to understand Christ's work for us.

This goes against those who grow old enough, and have the opportunity to consider Jesus' work on the cross, and come to an acceptance or denial of His death and resurrection. They've had the opportunity to see what is right and wrong in God's eyes. They have that chance, which the very young, and mentally handicapped, do not have.

This could be seen as wishful thinking. Maybe it is a bit. And there are certainly grey areas; it's not completely clear cut at all. But it also comes from our reasoning based on what we know of God and His nature, as well as what it takes to actually be saved by Christ's work in us.









(Edited by TheDoctor394)
6 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: "This could be seen as wishful thinking"

I doubt that. Every culture has had its "coming of age" ceremonies; they knew when puberty happens because it's so physically up front. Thus, every people around the world celebrated this event as a right of passage - with new privileges come new responsibilities. In many cultures, the youth received a new name, to instill on him the importance of that occasion.

The Bible references people who sacrificed their children at the altar by throwing them into the fire. They believed that children were the purest souls, fully innocent and also virgins. While true, God had to say something to them - its not nice to burn any creature alive, much less a human.

God only addresses a need that people can't see for themselves. Some call that intervention; others call it enlightenment. People tend to wander off the path and need guidance to return to it.

The people of the age of stupid (dark ages) got confused; one of the things they did was marry off their children before they'd reached puberty. This was to ensure the prize was a virgin. That led to problems so, again God had to say something to them. Of course, this isn't in the Bible because that happened later on.

(Edited by Zanjan)
6 years ago Report
0
Crash
Crash: "They have not yet gained the ability to understand what is morally right and wrong. Hence, it would be very unfair of God to condemn them,"

Doc..., you mean like how god punished adam and eve and by extension all of human kind? Not very fair of god correct? Seeing how according to the bible adam and eve were like children and had no concept of right and wrong. Yet god punished them anyways for it. So condemning babies is in gods wheelhouse. Not a stretch really.


6 years ago Report
0
shadowline
shadowline: Well, according to the Bible story, Adam and Eve had been clearly instructed by God as to what they could and couldn't do.

Whether their understanding of why that was a moral consideration was that of a theologian or not, they knowingly disobeyed their Creator.
6 years ago Report
0
Crash
Crash: "Disobedience" would be a non concept for them. They had no concept of right or wrong. Hence...doing something that someone told them NOT to do ...would have no substance for them. It wouldn't matter.

They wouldn't understand the "why" ....have no understanding of "consequences" ....so there would be no reason for them to not do whatever they wanted to do.

Hence....God punishes people that have no concept of right or wrong.
6 years ago Report
0
shadowline
shadowline: No, God punishes those who know that they owe him obedience because he is the source of their being.

If you know you are disobeying him, then you have as much concept of right and wrong as you need to be in the right, or in the wrong.
6 years ago Report
0
Crash
Crash: See above shadow. You would have no concept of disobedience if you had no concept of right and wrong. That's simply a logical contradiction.
6 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: The formation of Adam's personality must have unusual to say the least. He had no belly button of course, he also was likely created sexually mature, it is unlikely anyone at the time volunteerd for nappy duty and cleaning his backside.

I have no idea what his psyche was like, but personally I would not have been inclined to talk to the Guy. He would have constructed his sentences very differently from you and me. As for knowing right from wrong, that is imaterial, he was told not to eat the fruit from the tree, that was enough reason not to.
6 years ago Report
0
Crash
Crash: Not if you had no concept of right or wrong. And no concept of consequences. It would have been a "command" without any substance. A sentence without any context. There would be no "why" or definition behind it for him. Hence....could/would/should dismiss it out of hand.

"Disobedience" to him...would have been meaningless. He would not have known what it even was...let alone known whether it was "right" or "wrong."
6 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: crash, yeah I know where you are coming from, there is an entire childhood and adolesence missing from Adams life, same with his female. Which makes you wonder how he could make value judgments.
6 years ago Report
0
Crash
Crash: That, ... and the entire premise of the "original sin" was that they did not know of good or evil. Hence the Tree of ...The knowledge of good and evil.

Compound a possible toddler-esque mind....with the fact that until they ate the fruit...according to the bible....it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to know good from evil.
6 years ago Report
0
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: Crash, you've made some very good points about what I've written, and I don't have easy answers for them.

It is true that I see Adam and Eve, before the Fall, as the equivalent of children, who did not have an understanding of good and evil, only that they should do what God says. And, since they were condemned after their sin, wouldn't it be consistent to say that young children should also be condemned in a similar way?

To start with, I would exclude babies from this. No good parent or carer would punish a baby for throwing out a toy or screaming all night. So I stick by my view that babies are not held accountable by God. But by the time of about two years old, children are learning that when Mum or Dad says "no", they're not to do it. So, does that mean two year olds have reached the age of accountability?

I can't answer that in regards to sin. But I can answer in regards to the Gospel, in that they are too young to be able to understand the Christian message of salvation. A two year old (unless they are amazingly gifted) simply cannot grasp such a concept, especially since they're still trying to understand basic language anyway. So they don't yet have the chance to consider Jesus as their Saviour.

But couldn't the same be said of Adam and Eve? It gets a bit complicated here, since salvation through Christ was still in the future, and they also had no idea of the consequences of sin, so I wouldn't have thought they had to consider such things as salvation.

I acknowledge there aren't easy answers to this. It's given me more to ponder. But I still do stick by two main views, that babies (in around maybe the first two years of their lives, varying from child to child) are not accountable for their actions, and that, as they get older, even when they're learning the concepts of right and wrong, learning the Gospel message is harder to grasp, and, therefore, God would be gracious in that regard.

6 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: There is supposed to be a tree in the middle east which legend has it is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat it's berries you loos control of your bowels and bladder, throw up, and go into vivid halucinations for hours. Personally I don't think it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but the effects are probably the same.
6 years ago Report
0
Crash
Crash: LOL Chron....don't post shit like that when i have a mouthful of food HAHAHAha......*proceeds to clean off monitor*
6 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: Imagine what Adam and Eve looked like covered in shit and piss and vomit, not to mention the smell. No wonder they got thrown out.
6 years ago Report
0
Crash
Crash: I understand where YOU are coming from also doc. I also agree with you PERSONALLY on most if not all of your points. However, once again, I'm simply pointing out what the bible says...and does not say.

True it never actually says that god condemns babies to hell. However the evidence to the contrary is very compelling. It doesn't take much if any "interpretation" to conclude from scripture that god sends babies to hell.

I reiterate....the "age of reason" is no where in the bible. This is completely a man made concept. Also is a bit telling, ... for me anyways....that humans don't like the bits that paint god as a maniacal sadist. So they come up with caveats ....so they can reconcile their own personal morals with ....a "loving god" concept.

You would think this point would be a very important one. Something that god would not leave open to interpretation. Or leave any doubt for whatsoever. However that's simply not the case. Which emboldens me to believe my premise correct.

Maybe he just forgot......like he forgot to say rape and slavery are bad...when he was writing those 10 super important commandments but that's another story.
6 years ago Report
0
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: You admit that the Bible never says that God condemns babies to Hell, but then says the evidence that He does is very compelling. So we agree that the Bible is not one hundred percent clear on this issue. There will be inevitable speculation.

But, in my view, the evidence is very compelling that He does not, as I've explained. It just doesn't make sense that a just and fair God would condemn babies when they haven't had a chance to understand what it's all about. Remember, in the Old Testament, the Jews were forever messing up, sinning, going against God. Over and over and over again, God warned them, corrected them, pointed out their wrong doings. He was incredibly patient, showing them miracle after miracle, coming to their rescue again and again, before He had to give them the heavy hand.

Then there's Paul, who persecuted the early Christians mercilessly, yet was offered direct salvation.

Are we to say that the same God would just condemn a baby without any chance at all? That, to me, that shows no consistency at all.
6 years ago Report
1
Crash
Crash: First I dismiss the premise that god is either fair nor just. So there's that. Second...yes it doesn't directly say that god condemns babies to hell. However......when the evidence to the contrary is .......

The wages of sin are death.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of god. ALL....not All except babies.

We are all born into sin. BORN into sin.


That seems to me ....i won't go so far as to say it's conclusive...although it pretty much is. I will say it is EXTREMELY compelling that god indeed sends babies to hell.


Your point being it doesn't make sense. Of course not....of course it doesn't make sense to a rational, compassionate , thinking, caring human being. Why would it. That's kinda my point. And lends credence to my claim that god is neither fair nor just and is indeed a maniacal sadist.


Once again you are trying to insert your own personal values ...over the supposed values/morals of your god.....because you don't want to believe that your god would do such a horrid thing.

It's understandable ......however ...like I said......I'm simply stating what the bible says.
6 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: By taking one sentence completely out of context. That's deliberate.
(Edited by Zanjan)
6 years ago Report
0
Crash
Crash: Which sentence did I "take out of context" Zan? And describe for me a context in which any of those things I listed above...don't mean what they say.
6 years ago Report
0
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: A major problem we have here, Crash, is that you don't see God as just or fair. I do. You've seen the harsh parts of the Bible, which give you a grim view of God, and they outweigh the parts that show God's patience, love and forgiveness (which I assume you've seen as well - if not, I can show you some of them). I've also seen these parts of the Bible, but, in my view, the "nice" outweigh the harsh. So we've seen the same information, and have come to opposite points of view.

That's fine. But both views are going to, to some degree, colour our judgement when we come to such topics as this. Since I see God as fair and loving, I believe He would not punish babies. Since you see him as some kind of cruel beast, you believe He would.

There's not a lot we can do about that. We just sit on opposite sides of the fence in that regard.

But to refer to a couple of passages you have sited here...

Romans 3:23 does indeed say, "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God". True, it does not except babies. But if we read the whole passage, or, better still, the whole letter, surely we can see that Paul is writing to the Roman church, expecting adults to be reading and listening. He is explaining the Gospel to them. It would also be good to note verse 20 of this chapter, where we read, "therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." Surely this is meaning we have to be old enough to gain such a consciousness. I know there's speculation here, but to simply say babies must be included in the condemnation because they are not explicitly excluded is stretching things a bit, I think.

In regards to us being born into sin, there are, to my knowledge, two main views of this doctrine. One is that we are sinners from birth, the other that we are born with a sinful nature. In other words, the capability to sin. But we are not actually sinners right from the word go. I favour the second view, which makes more sense to me.

Think about Adam and Eve. When they were created, they lived a perfect life in Eden. If they were actual sinners from the start, why did God wait until they ate from the tree to punish them? It was only when they actually committed a sin that they were seen as sinners, and deserving of punishment.

Could it be that that is the same with us?
6 years ago Report
0
deuce916
deuce916: "When they were created," You make it sound as if it were true.
6 years ago Report
0