At what part of the New Testament does Christ- who I will not deny the existence of seeing as, whether a true prophet or not, WAS a real person historically- sit down and say, to put it in simple terms: “Everybody listen! Stoning to death- we’re not doing it anymore. Multiple wifes- not doing it anymore. The Ten Commandments… well, I actually like those- we’re keeping them.”? I don’t remember anything like that happening.
I understand those in context with one and other. They both are giving identical advice and setting forth bad things that could happen if you break said advice.
He actually specifically stops a crowd from stoning an woman who was guilty of a crime punishable by stoning (I’m sure you heard the whole “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” bit), and also very specifically said that having multiple wives was wrong from the start, but Moses permitted it because the Jewish culture at the time wasn’t ready for the paradigm shift. He doesn’t specifically endorse the 10 Commandments that I recall, but I can’t think of one that would be acceptable to break in light of His other teachings. I’m at work and to lazy to cite this, I’m sure someone will if you ask!
Hi Uccisore,
You’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought it was pretty well conceded amongst biblical scholars that the “ye who is without sin cast the first stone” was a later addition to the gospel, and that it was historically unrelated to Jesus. But I concede that such a script is nonetheless in the bible as we know it. Nonetheless, or rather, furthermoreover, why hasn’t there been a new grand council of bible editors (at least within the Catholic church, NoelG) who just go ahead and edit out the relevant sections of the Old Testament?
The fact is that barring direct divine appearence, like god descending from heavan and setting things straight. we will never know which religion is right, if any, or if there is a god, or hell, or heavan, or an afterlife…
We find this out at death… it’s like a big suprise…
Life is like a video game in an arcade… We are so focused on the arcade, we have absolutely no clue what goes on around is… when we die, and turn away from the game, what happens then has the best chance of answering your questions…
One thing i noted was that you claim to accept some specifics… probably something along the lines of be a good person…
I’m not going to try and convince you why that belief could be wrong, but you should ask yourself why you think some specifics are divine, while admitting that you are probably wrong…
Hi Oughtist,
Even though Christians aren’t obliged to follow old Jewish law (apart from the laws consonant with Christ’s teachings), we still consider the Old testament to be sacred text, which reveals important aspects about the early salvation history of mankind. In any case, the Church doesn’t have issues with (or contradictions in their theology due to) the Old Testament, so why would they want to edit out the “relevant sections”? The Church generally doesn’t alter its doctrines due to the dissatisfaction of atheists/materialists/non-religious/whoever (even it did, I’m fairly sure those same people would then be accusing the Church of arbitrariness).
Hi again NoelG,
I could speak, perhaps, to the issue of making parsimonious distinctions for the lay members of the faith, who may well be confused about when the Word of God is or is not being cited. Or, I might suggest that as a matter of broader eccumenical good faith, offending passages might at least be put on a special list or highlited with a bold yellow marker, with an explicit proviso of “nevermind” (which, surely, Jesuits and others have de facto done, even if not officially sanctioned). But, as you imply the Vatican itself isn’t going to mess with its sacred text. That’s just the way it is. But as a matter of philosophical discourse, aren’t you isolating yourself from the larger discussion? From the outside perspective, internal consistency only goes so far. I don’t mean to fault you from that, but there remains a question of basic contra-diction here (even as, for instance, Benedict’s first encyclical (I forget, is that the word) seemed to imply that only Christians experience agape, or did I get that wrong,too… his quick dismissal of Nietzche got me in a critically compromised mood)… well, back to nonacademialand… (I do enjoy these diversions, and agree with the sentiment stated elsewhere that communication is a small miracle) Smiles! (sorry, I don’t know how to use the techno-gagetry here yet).
The Bible is a collection of books written by different authors across many centuries. If not for a literal interpretation of the trope “God’s Word” who would reasonably expect that there would be no “contradictions” between the books? There are common themes between the books. If there weren’t they would not have been selected as part for the church’s canon. Christians agree that the books are divinely inspired. Not all believe that the Bible is inerrant. Besides, while the writings have theological moment, the Bible is not by and large a doctrinal treatise. There is a lot of historical narrative, mythology and poetry. You don’t usually find people arguing about Whitman contradicting Wordsworth though people find meaning in the works of both writers.
Not sure if this was mentioned, but aren’t you speaking of the Apocrypha Oughtist?
I mean, it’s not like pieces of the Bible haven’t been cut out before for being outrageous, so why not start snipping out pieces of the old testament? If it was as holy a book as you claim, Noely, then shouldn’t it have been left intact, Apocrypha and all?
Hi Oughtist,
I’m not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that concentrating on internal consistency isn’t going to appeal to (or be attractive to) those who are not of the faith? I don’t think this is necessarily the case. I think outreach to or interaction with non-religious philosophical types doesn’t really start with issues such as insular internal consistency, rather it starts with questions regarding whether God exists, whether it is possible for God to exist, the nature of knowledge etc. Only when one (of a philosophical persuasion at least) becomes convinced that God exists do they then examine which theist religion seems most coherent to them. That may be too simple an analysis though.
Hi dorky,
The Apocrypha were never part of the canon, they weren’t considered to be inspired (and therefore holy), so how can they have been snipped out of something they were never originally a part of?
It's only found in the Gospel of John of those writings that survive, and that's generally agreed to be the last one written. As far as I can tell, it's definitely a later addition to [i]John[/i], but it seems more reasonable to think that it was added from some other minor Gospel that's since been lost, and not made up on the spot. As far as why there hasn't been a new grand council of Bible editors, I suppose the main reason is that there was never an [i]old[/i] grand council of Bible editors. Canon was gradually worked out over a period of centuries, and even the Lutheran's decision to (eventually) remove certain books from the Old Testament wasn't made all at once, or by any one person. Besides, what reason would there be to do that? It's not as though Christians are all confused over whether they should be stoning adulterers, this sort of confusion seems to only afflict the skeptics, and I'm sure we can agree that the Bible wasn't put together with them in mind.
No, I thought it was well stated. I’ve certainly found that to be true of my experience here. It’s my reason for seldom getting into an internal consistency discussion, because I can’t really make an argument in a thread when it’s been stated in the OP that God’s a given. Although now and then a non-theist can see aspects of those internal arguments that we think better support our position and we have to bite our tongues (at least those of us who are that self-disciplined, and that’s by no means always applicable to me, lol) so as not to derail the thread. I think the internal consistency’s an okay foundation for threads, btw, but still, it’s insular and exclusive and sometimes makes the hair on the back of an atheist’s neck stand on end. But what else can the various parties do, because the believer v. non-believer theme gets pretty used up, as well. 
And then there’s the ex-believer who becomes a non-believer as a consequent of the belief itself (I won’t guarantee the logic there, but stay with me a moment). Of the many influences that led me, after a fairly devout and well bred emergence into adulthood, to leave the (Roman Catholic) church, the one that stuck out most to me was largely an emotional one… “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed”. I became tired of feeling unworthy and deaf. I just couldn’t do it any more. I felt excluded from within (though I also seriously suspected that a very high proportion of the laity didn’t even experience the issue). Some positions eventually defeat themselves… Sorry for the self-therapy session, folks.
Not fruitful at all, as you very well know, Monsieur Xunzi-an. 
I most certainly do not want to explore how any (recognizing that not all who self-identify that way do it) Christians can read two contradictory statements in a book in front of them and then turn that dissonance inward. It causes me angst, although I always try to wish them the best.
I think Ucci did a fine job of circumventing the problem. It actually reminded me somewhat of a bit in the Analects, which while a very different sort of book than the Bible, there are some similarities. At one point, a disciple comes up and asks Confucius when he should apply something new that he has learned. Confucius replies by telling him that he should wait a very long time (until the disciples parents are dead, and he has observed the mourning period for them – and that is when Confucius thinks it would be proper for this particular individual to even think about applying new things, he still councils restraint even after that time!). Then in the next passage, another disciple asks Confucius the same question. This time, Confucius says that he should put what he has learned to use immediately. In the next passage, another disciple comes up to Confucius and basically says, “Well what the hell am I supposed to do with that?! You tell one person to do one thing, and then another to do the opposite! WTF?!” So Confucius explains that the first disciple is overly enthusiastic. He has a sort of fetish for the new and is always racing from one thing to the next. The second disciple is lethargic, and just sticks to what he has always done.
So what you have here is a seeming contradiction that is, in fact, a mistake and that the contradiction only arises when it is taken out of context. There was no contradiction in Confucius’ advice if you consider it from the standpoint of his emphasis on the Mean. However, if you view them as deontological maxims, then a contradiction arises. I’m willing to bet that at least some of the contradictions in the Bible are of a similar nature, where the context is either lost or sufficiently parochial that is has no meaning to moderns.
But that doesn’t really matter too much, as Ucci pointed out, because if there is a governing body that decides these things, then even contradictions existing needn’t be a problem. You can value something without thinking it is perfect. Now, I do think (and perhaps Ucci does too, though you’d have to ask him) that it does provide a good argument against the sort of pop-sola scriptura fundamentalism that is out-and-about right now. Since that is the kind of Christianity that is likely to cause me angst, having some tools to argue against it (without arguing against Christianity as a whole) isn’t a bad thing. 
I think the only argument necessary against sola scriptura is history. I don’t really get how a doctrine invented in the 16th century could be the guiding principal of correct Christian practice.
Yikes. Sorry for that last piece of indigestion. New at this. Learning curve. I’ll be doing my pennance on the bleachers for a while.
Bah, dive right in. Make an ass of yourself, even. You need that sort of foundation to help you built genuine humility 3-4 years down the road.
Not that it works for all of us.
EDIT: Yeah, which is not to say that I think you WERE making an ass of yourself, I don’t even know what post or comment of yours you’re apologizing for.
Ucci,
Well, that all depends on your goal. For me, that has lately been to convince swing voters to make a mark next to the “D” on the ballot come November. A comparison of theological movements in the 16th century vs. the 1-4th centuries isn’t gonna do me a lot of good there. On the other hand, pointing out that the Bible is an incredibly complex text and that an individual’s understanding of it is going to be necessarily limited can be used as a starting point to nudge people away from “Gospel of Wealth” positions which, unlike some of the minor contradictions brought up in atheist apologetics, is entirely unsupported by the Bible.
But, yes, on the issue of Christianity qua Christianity, I think your point is sufficient.
Oughtist,
I didn’t think it was a bad post at all. I’ve re-read it several times to see where any embarrassment would stem from and I can’t see any. Aside from the vulnerability of sincerity, but that isn’t a bad thing. For one thing, the net is pretty much entirely anonymous, so there is no reason not to be sincere.
Plus I’m something of an emotivist, so paths like that are interesting to me.
I believe some specifics, admittedly, somewhat out of habit- such that Jesus was a most holy of prophets. I have, in the past, heard logical arguments both for and against these arguments.
I claim not to be a Christian- yet I feel Jesus is “holy”. Let me explain this:
I believe Jesus was a prophet- possibly a prophet with an arsenal of miracles at his command.
I believe Jesus’ teachings to be good.
However, I either doubt or openly disbelieve most of the Christian bible.
I doubt: the virgin birth, the wise men, the cannibalism of Jesus’ flesh and blood at the last supper ( 
), ect.
I openly disbelieve: the great flood, the story of Sodom and Gamora, the story of Job, the story about the walls at Jericho tumbling down, etc.
I believe that God’s interventions on this planet are few and very far between.
I believe God created life- I believe that life evolves.
I believe the Big Bang theory- I believe that God engineered it.
I can fully rationalize a belief in God with any scientific belief (besides the belief “God does not exist” ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
)