Apparently, for some people, it doesn't matter why the statements might contradict as long as they do. Why should reasons matter? — BrianW

There are those who use reason to justify bias. Personally, as a believer, I often find myself questioning some of the bible statements but I never question its teachings on morality. I think some of the leaders in the bible were more intense in their judgements than others but their overall stance on morality in terms of right and wrong seem to be the same.

Apparently, for some people, it doesn't matter why the statements might contradict as long as they do. Why should reasons matter? — BrianW

There are those who use reason to justify bias. Personally, as a believer, I often find myself questioning some of the bible statements but I never question its teachings on morality. I think some of the leaders in the bible were more intense in their judgements than others but their overall stance on morality in terms of right and wrong seem to be the same.

What are we looking to find in the scriptures. If it's the truth, then, amidst the many interpretations, which do you pick as truth? — BrianW

@BrianW

For all the contradictions there are otherwise reasonable interpretations consistent with the overall message in the scriptures. Most people often ignore them because they're more interested in proving "God" to be wrong. In the end, they just reveal their motives. There are many reasons why statements from different people would be contradicting, the better question would be, are their teachings in contrast?

The problem isn't the trinity, it is those who don't care to understand what is taught about the father, the son and the holy spirit.

...I am in the father and the father is in me...

- Jesus (from the Bible).

...I and the father are one...

- Jesus (from the Bible).

I don't know where people get their information about the trinity but I think their misrepresentation is what is heresy!

I'm still a christian, if only because I still go to church. However, I must confess I came to this forum to indulge my curiosity of alternative points of view. At heart, I think, there's more fear of God than devotion to God. This reality is quite frightening but, it is.
I hope there's a reasonable way to know God and still understand life through its many representations. Science seems to bring confusion and doubt. If science is right, what does it mean for my faith? Can God and evolution both be right?

We could use a few Jesus's too. A lot less Judas's.

I was telling my three boys the story of the Nativity and how the Wise Men brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh for the infant Jesus.

Clearly giving it a lot of thought, my six-year-old observed, "Mom, a Wise Woman would have brought diapers."

:up: Quite the exposition.

Sorry eodnhoj7 but I believe in the laws of logic in the way they are understood in philosophy. Because you seem to contradict them I cannot agree with you. I don't have better arguments than those already given so I will stick to what I know and understand, if yours works for you then it's also ok. Perhaps there is meant to be many paths to the same end.

I think the goal of art is to exhibit beauty. Most times that beauty is appreciated through our emotive faculties but even the intellectual faculty has as much participation in appreciating art especially in this century of virtual reality and cyber media.

On a side note, I have some of the great art masterpieces, the mona lisa, the last supper, the storm of galilee, the madonna - they're mostly religious. Anyway, they are all printed using modern technology. To some, that lessens their beauty because they lack the original artiste's idiosyncrasies and it may be true but they're still just as beautiful.

I am old and do like the insinuation that being old is being stupid. — Athena

Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. It's just that some unfortunate people loose their marbles with age. Though, I can't expressly say that it's the case with him.

I think only with humor can we find something good in our present situation, and laugh so we don't cry. — Athena

Ok, that makes sense. I hadn't thought of it like that.

It's easy to find faults in the bible depending on the interpretation given. In the old testament, much of what is said about God contradicts with what is given in the new testament. This is because, in the old testament God is also tempestuous, impulsive, impassioned, basically everything you would say of someone with little self-discipline. Then again, they're all hearsay statements since only the prophets dealt with God directly and none of them were the actual writers. It is possible that some of those human-like actions were actually perpetrated by the prophets and were attributed to God because of their relation. The point of view of the writers seems to have coloured much of the information in the Bible.
However, from the time of prophet Samuel onwards, God's representation gets better the further on towards the new testament. From the early old testament books, even I questioned whether morality was solely dependent on God's commands, but as you read on especially in the new testament, we realise that God's nature is absolute and that the laws He gives are to govern human conduct which is why they may change in interpretation. This is largely expressed when Jesus says, "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." The laws are like tools which humans use to govern their relations but are not supposed to override their free-will which allows them to determine whatever course of action they choose.
The only hint to reincarnation I know of in the Bible is when Jesus says that John the baptist is the former prophet Elias (Elijah). Certain other interpretations use the teaching about being born again as implying reincarnation but for me it's not definite. So far, reincarnation is not a christian teaching.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" Do we must do it or no? What do you think about it? — Artie

As a christian, I think we should understand it in the broadest possible way because that is the love in question. First, it starts with free-will. We should allow other people the same capacity that is given to us for making choices and determining our own lives.
Secondly, love is best expressed by the teachings in 1st Corinthians 13:4-7, which says,

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

I've always wondered, what reasons are there to suppose that life could be simulations or illusions? The arguments in favour of such are often well presented but none expressly identifies a reason for venturing into such propositions. Is it just a sort of way to balance the speculation about reality? So, instead of "what is reality?", we have "what is not reality?".

Also, if he makes such statements, what does it say about his advisors? Maybe there is more to it than just Trump.

This is kind of mean. He may not be the smartest president of the free world but it's not good to out him like this. Have some sympathy guys, he is old.

"Are the mind and body are separate substances or elements of the same substance (dualism or materialism)? What is your reasoning for either?"

I'm a bit old-fashioned and religious, which as I have come to realize, is not a good combination in philosophy. Anyway, I believe the ways of the mind and body are not always aligned (much of this view is borrowed from spiritual teachings). Since the mind is abstract compared to the body, it gets less attention. We use it frequently but we don't apply the same maintenance as with the body because while we have been clear for a very long time what it means to have a healthy functioning body, it is only recently that we have began paying attention to what it means to have a healthy functioning mind.
I don't know the source of the duality but I see it in day-to-day relations.

Hi guys, there's another such argument going on in another discussion. From that, I can only conclude that perhaps we should be as simple and clear as is readily acceptable to those we wish to express ourselves to. Sometimes, philosophers fail on this account due to overuse of complex vocabulary and derived terms whose meanings are not readily evident to those less philosophically inclined.

This is a very interesting argument. Please allow me to share my opinion.

The two sides of the argument use different meanings for the terms logic, axioms, subjective, among others.
From what 'eodnhoj7' states, he is right, in that, all statements must be fallacious because the logic he follows claims all logic (including his) is subjective and therefore subject to fallacy. In that way he proves his own fallacy.

On the other side, 'BrianW' and 'Metaphysician Undercover', must be right by their own logic because they follow from the laws of logic which they use.

In conclusion, there should be no argument once you discover there is no agreement in the terminology used because there is no consensus in understanding. Otherwise there is no end to this type of argument.

Thanks guys.