Quiz Show: Biblical Contradictions...LMFatAO!!!

[Cap'n Cat]

[youtube][/youtube]

[SeattleGriz]

Craig is a racist piece of shit.

[Cap'n Cat]

Uh-huh.

[SeattleGriz]

Uh-huh.

Is Craig not white?

Case closed.

[Cap'n Cat]

Uh-huh.

Is Craig not white?

Case closed.

Nice try, SeaGee. Doesn't everyone hate blacks?

[SeattleGriz]

Is Craig not white?

Case closed.

Nice try, SeaGee. Doesn't everyone hate blacks?

Well, being white in all, I would have to say, "FUCK YEAH".

[Cap'n Cat]

Nice try, SeaGee. Doesn't everyone hate blacks?

Well, being white in all, I would have to say, "FUCK YEAH".

[Chizzang]

* edit

[SuperHornet]

Are we back to the Delaware filth that whites are racists by definition?

SMH....

[Cap'n Cat]

Are we back to the Delaware filth that whites are racists by definition?

SMH....

Your boyfriend's from Delaware, ain't he?

[Chizzang]

Are we back to the Delaware filth that whites are racists by definition?

SMH....

You are delightfully stupid...

[Ibanez]

Are we back to the Delaware filth that whites are racists by definition?

SMH....

You are a special kind of..."special".

[JoltinJoe]

[youtube][/youtube]

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnStOnge]

Well I'm not going to check every one of those but it's obvious when one reads the Bible that at it as a literal history book is problematic. However, with the internet one can probably find a rebuttal to each contradiction posited in that video and one should probably read such rebuttals before making up one's mind. The fact that someone asserts a contradiction in a video does not necessarily mean that particular contradiction exists.

For example: One of the things I noticed early on when reading the Bible cover to cover is the apparent contradiction...at least in the translations I read...about the order in which God created things. In the translations I read, Chapter 1 indicates animals were created first and Chapter 2 indicates God created Man and God needed to make him some company so he created animals then brought them by Man to name, etc. But there are rebuttals to that. For example the one at https://www.google.com/search?q=Bible+a ... =firefox-a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; kind of revolves around a Hebrew word that the authors say can be translated both as "formed" and "had formed."

I don't buy it. Even if one allows for the possibility of the Hebrew word "yatsar" being translated "had formed" the translation I'm reading right now says:

It is not good for Man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him. So the Lord God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air...

It's kind of hard to render that into anything but a story in which Man was created first even given the idea that "yastar" could be translated into "had made" or "had formed." Nevertheless, the rebuttals are out there. And they are pretty good at coming up with stuff. Like coming up with a translation for the quote above where "So" is changed to "Now" and "formed" is changed to "had formed." Problem solved.

[D1B]

Joe, you're a member of a crime organization that harbors an army of pedophiles, rapists and sadists. Tens of thousands of children, mostly boys near the age of yours, had their lives ruined by celebate old men and homosexuals wearing dresses. Every Sunday these cross dressing freaks of humanity feed you and your family the flesh and blood of your narcissistic zombie god who was birthed by a virgin.

You are a collassal dumbass and freak who gets fooled every waking hour.

[D1B]

Well I'm not going to check every one of those but it's obvious when one reads the Bible that at it as a literal history book is problematic. However, with the internet one can probably find a rebuttal to each contradiction posited in that video and one should probably read such rebuttals before making up one's mind. The fact that someone asserts a contradiction in a video does not necessarily mean that particular contradiction exists.

For example: One of the things I noticed early on when reading the Bible cover to cover is the apparent contradiction...at least in the translations I read...about the order in which God created things. In the translations I read, Chapter 1 indicates animals were created first and Chapter 2 indicates God created Man and God needed to make him some company so he created animals then brought them by Man to name, etc. But there are rebuttals to that. For example the one at https://www.google.com/search?q=Bible+a ... =firefox-a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; kind of revolves around a Hebrew word that the authors say can be translated both as "formed" and "had formed."

I don't buy it. Even if one allows for the possibility of the Hebrew word "yatsar" being translated "had formed" the translation I'm reading right now says:

It is not good for Man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him. So the Lord God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air...

It's kind of hard to render that into anything but a story in which Man was created first even given the idea that "yastar" could be translated into "had made" or "had formed." Nevertheless, the rebuttals are out there. And they are pretty good at coming up with stuff. Like coming up with a translation for the quote above where "So" is changed to "Now" and "formed" is changed to "had formed." Problem solved.

Thousands upon thousands of scholars, linguists, archeologists and even theologians have deemed the bible nothing more than the nonsensical, multi-edited and dumb ramblings of an ignorant bronze age culture. If the catholic church and the tyrants they controlled didn't terrorize and murder people for nonbelief for 1900 uears, the bible would be where it belong-in a mile high maggot pile with the rest of early humanity's myths.

[JoltinJoe]

Joe, you're a member of a crime organization that harbors an army of pedophiles, rapists and sadists. Tens of thousands of children, mostly boys near the age of yours, had their lives ruined by celebate old men and homosexuals wearing dresses. Every Sunday these cross dressing freaks of humanity feed you and your family the flesh and blood of your narcissistic zombie god who was birthed by a virgin.

You are a collassal dumbass and freak who gets fooled every waking hour.

I guess you don't like The Who.

BTW, what are "celebate" old men?

[D1B]

Joe, you're a member of a crime organization that harbors an army of pedophiles, rapists and sadists. Tens of thousands of children, mostly boys near the age of yours, had their lives ruined by celebate old men and homosexuals wearing dresses. Every Sunday these cross dressing freaks of humanity feed you and your family the flesh and blood of your narcissistic zombie god who was birthed by a virgin.

You are a collassal dumbass and freak who gets fooled every waking hour.

I guess you don't like The Who.

BTW, what are "celebate" old men?

Spell checking

Here you go, coward:

In the Catholic Church, the apostles are considered to have been the first priests and bishops in the Church. Some say the call to be eunuchs for the sake of heaven in Matthew 19 was a call to be sexually continent and that this developed into mandatory celibacy for priests as the successors of the apostles. Others see the call to be sexually continent in Matthew 19 to be a caution for men who were too readily divorcing and remarrying. A footnote in the New American Bible says: “Some scholars take the call [to be eunuchs for the sake of heaven] to be meant for those who have been divorced by their spouses and who have refused to enter into another marriage” (p. 1041). The view of the Church is that celibacy is a reflection of life in Heaven, a source of detachment from the material world which aids in one's relationship with God. Celibacy is designed to "consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord, they give themselves entirely to God and to men. It is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God."[1] In contrast to this, St Peter, the first apostle called by Jesus (Matthew 4) and considered today the first pope, was married (Matthew 8).

Celibacy was not required of popes, bishops, or priests in the early church. Popes, bishops, and priests married and sired children for over a thousand years after Christ[16] Celibacy was first written into law for all priests in the 12th century at the First Lateran Council (1123). Because clerics resisted it, the celibacy mandate was restated at the Second Lateran Council (1139) and the Council of Trent (1545–64).[17] Historically, priestly celibacy became law for all only through coercion and enslavement of clerical wives and children.[18] “The earliest decree in which the children [of clerics] were declared to be slaves and never to be enfranchised [freed] seems to have been a canon of the Synod of Pavia in 1018. Similar penalties were promulgated against wives and concubines (see the Synod of Melfi, 1189 can. Xii), who by the very fact of their unlawful connexion with a subdeacon or clerk of higher rank became liable to be seized by the over-lord”.[18]

The early church resisted false asceticism. Scripture reflects the fact that early Christians embraced marriage and yet felt that a false ascetic bias against marriage was seeping into their culture: 1 Timothy 4:1 "In the last times, some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving for those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving. For it is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer".[19] Mandatory celibacy for priests continues to be a contested issue even today.

Usually, only celibate men are ordained as priests in the Latin Rite.[20][21] More recently, married clergy who have converted from other denominations have been ordained Roman Catholic priests without becoming celibate.[22] Mandatory priestly celibacy is not a doctrine, or dogma, of the Church (examples of Catholic doctrine would be the principle of the absolute respect for life or the belief in the Assumption and Immaculate Conception) but a church rule or discipline, like the use of the vernacular (local) language in Mass or the ancient rule of Lenten fasting and abstinence.[23] As such, it can theoretically change at any time though it still must be obeyed by Catholics until the change were to take place. The Eastern Catholic Churches ordain both celibate and married men. However, in both the East and the West, bishops are chosen from among those who are celibate.[24][25] In Ireland, several priests have maintained "secret" families, the two most prominent being Bishop Eamonn Casey and Father Michael Cleary (priest).

One explanation for the origin of obligatory celibacy is that it is based on Christ's example and on the writings of Paul, who wrote of the advantages celibacy allowed a man in serving the Lord,[26] Celibacy was popularized by the early Christian theologian Origen and Augustine. Another possible explanation for the origins of obligatory celibacy revolves around more practical reason, "the need to avoid claims on church property by priests' offspring".[27] It remains a matter of Canon Law (and often a criterion for certain religious orders, especially Franciscans) that priests do not own land and therefore cannot pass it on to legitimate or illegitimate children. The land belongs to the Church through the local diocese as administered by the Local Ordinary, or Bishop.

More convoluted catholic bullshit that Jesus would abhor, if he ever existed.

Eunuchs, wearing dresses, telling people not to wear condoms and women not to take birth control.

[JoltinJoe]

I guess you don't like The Who.

BTW, what are "celebate" old men?

Spell checking

Here you go, coward

Hey, Dum1, pointing out misspellings is generally a dick move, true.

The exception to that rule is when the guy who misspells the word also uses the dunce smiley in the same post.

[D1B]

Spell checking

Here you go, coward

Hey, Dum1, pointing out misspellings is generally a dick move, true.

The exception to that rule is when the guy who misspells the word also uses the dunce smiley in the same post.

Oh, now we have posting rules from the pedophile protector!

[JoltinJoe]

Hey, Dum1, pointing out misspellings is generally a dick move, true.

The exception to that rule is when the guy who misspells the word also uses the dunce smiley in the same post.

Oh, now we have posting rules from the pedophile protector!

What a one-dick pony ...

[D1B]

Oh, now we have posting rules from the pedophile protector!

What a one-dick pony ...

Midget - in both mind and body

[AZGrizFan]

Why don't you two get a room.

[dbackjon]

Why don't you two get a room.

[JoltinJoe]

What a one-dick pony ...

Midget - in both mind and body

Sorry, this mental midget has to step into a meeting where we are discussing a multimillion dollar deal.

Why don't we take this up again when you have nothing else to do, like next Friday night?