If the bible is the infallible word of god why are there so many christian schisms and heresies? You can't even bring up the trinity without encountering 10 different conflicting ideas about something that's supposed to be a basic tenet of christian belief.

>>17806550 (OP)
Because the Bible may be the infallible word of God, but Man has an incredibly fallible way of interpreting the word.

As man's knowledge of God increasing, so does his understandi9ng of the word.

>>17806550 (OP)
Because the devil needs to well poison the word of God and cause confusion, or else it goes unabated and works without obstacles to finally bring his end.

>>17806550 (OP)
Because most people pick and choose what parts of the bible they believe

>>17806572
okay heretic
>>17806550 (OP)
>If the bible is the infallible word of god
it's not thought?

>>17806550 (OP)
So the infallible word of God is a little fallible. Don't like it? Add it to the pile of contradictions, pal. We're not running a daycare for babies who still need their precious logical consistency milk to make sense of the world. God doesn't owe you anything.

>>17806550 (OP)
The bible is the story of a very, very incompetent supreme being. He made so many mistakes in his perfect creation that he had to kill everyone on it.. and then did it again.

Makes 2 humans and puts them in a garden of eden, but places them right next to the thing that will screw all that up and does nothing to prevent it, then blames them and all their progeny for all time for something thats his fault.

Makes a magic rule book thats so vague and open to interpretation that there are now 30,000 sects of christianity alone all of which disagree with each other. And he allows many other holy books and does not give any of us a clue as to which one are right and which ones are wrong, proceeds to let us kill each other by the millions over it. He has the power to appear at any time to stop all the killing, chooses not to.

Claims to be supreme being, but still has needs (to be worshiped), desires (to have a son) and failings (he is angry and jealous quite often).

Claims he gave us free will, then gives us a list of rules we must follow or else he will torture us forever... which goes completely against the notion of us having free will (you have free will but you must do as I say) and proving that he has no morality at all since he is offering infinite punishment for finite crimes. And his own morality is lower than the morality of secular society, which is weird since you'd think an all knowing all seeing supreme being would have known that slavery was immoral even thousands of years ago. maybe he could have even put that in his list of commandments, instead of say 'thou shalt have no other gods before me'?

Goes through an elaborate scheme of self sacrifice to change rules that he could have changed at any time without the torture and sacrifice of himself. And again why would a supreme being come up with rules so flawed in the first place that they needed to be changed after the fact?

>>17806640
>And his own morality is lower than the morality of secular society, which is weird since you'd think an all knowing all seeing supreme being would have known that slavery was immoral even thousands of years ago
You've just argued for God giving free will to people. Instead of abolishing it completely, he conformed to the cultural practices of the people at the time, and put in ethical boundaries so that it progresses humanity over time. God didn't come done and say "Hey, enslave people" it was already being done by the people, which is the very thing that showcases men moving on their own accord.

>>17806572
>Because the Bible may be the infallible word of God, but Man has an incredibly fallible way of interpreting the word.
There is no inherent meaning in text.

>>17806550 (OP)

>>17806653
>God didn't come done and say "Hey, enslave people"
Well, you've got Deuteronomy 20
"When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. But if it does not accept your terms of peace and makes war against you, then you shall besiege it, and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your plunder the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of these nations here. But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. Indeed, you shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods and you thus sin against the Lord your God."

>>17806702
Yeah, because all those people were engaged in Baal worship. The fear and authority of God had to be established to his own people and to the others, which was the complete extermination of the Baal worshipers. This is a tired argument, why don't you look up what Baal worship actually entailed, and then go one better and see there's actually archeological evidence of said worship that was found.

>>17806709

>>17806711
>T-that never happened. There were no archaelogical findings of children's bones stuffed into urns near Baal like symbols
You try to argue into good faith and when cornered it's just "la la la la la I can't hear you".

>>17806718
You said god didn't say to enslave people. I showed a passage where he did say to enslave people (and if they don't like it, kill the men and take their women and children -- unless they belong to certain groups, in which case let nothing that breathes survive). Then you pivoted to "Well, God had to establish his authority and anyway those people deserved it."

>>17806731
Point to me where it says "into slavery"

>>17806739
"If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor."

>>17806743
Right, which was unto a people who weren't part of the Baal club. Since the tribe of Moses was to inherit the land, they took in the ones that weren't, and even still there were guidelines implemented that weren't the brutal slavery that they endured from the Egyptians. It wasn't ideal, but it wasn't smashing the wheel of cultural indoctrination to leave people running around like headless chickens. It's the same thing as polygamy, when God intended for monogamy to be the divine standard, but even kings like David still slipped through that intent, because polygamy was expected of kings and was also entwined into the culture.

>>17806765
Ah, so it wasn't that bad, got it.

>>17806771
And he didn't really mean it. He was just accomodating the culture.

>>17806572
Why did God not make the Bible in such a way that no one can interpret it in a fallible way?

>>17806771
I see you have absolutely zero problem overlooking children being burned alive, but forced labor that had better than expected stipulations put in place is just a line too far. Your standards are great!

>>17806782
Assuming you're correct, according to God, the cure for a culture that burns its children is to kill all of them *including their children*. Which seems a little questionable to me.

And burning people alive isn't something that God was strictly opposed to. In Leviticus 20:14, it's the punishment assigned in the case that a man has sex with both a woman and her mother -- they all get burned. In Leviticus 21, it's the punishment for when a priest's daughter prostitutes herself. God himself burns two people to death in Leviticus 10 for doing a ritual wrong in some way. And lets not the eternal fire that perhaps awaits many children who were unfortunate enough to not be introduced to Christianity and persuaded to agree with it. (assuming unbaptised babies aren't all going to hell, at what age does a person have enough responsibility that they can be condemned to eternal fire for having the wrong ideas about religion?)

Arguably child sacrifice isn't even something that God was strictly opposed to, since he didn't step in to prevent Jephthah from killing his daughter to keep a promise to God: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2011%3A30-40&version=NRSVUE

>>17806808 (cont.)
For the record, I don't have all of this stuff perfectly memorized. My strategy is just that when I see someone say "God wouldn't/didn't do x horrible thing." I double-check to see if he did, and surprisingly often it does turn out that in fact (at least according to the Bible) he did.

>>17806837
owned him hard, the christcuck is now transforming into an eunuch as we speak

>>17806808
>Assuming you're correct, according to God, the cure for a culture that burns its children is to kill all of them *including their children*. Which seems a little questionable to me.
Which is why God and the primitive land forming in the Old Testament doesn't hold to your squeamish morality cultivated straight from the comfort of your computer chair. It wasn't intended to hold your hand and sing you lullabies, it's telling you "These were the people, this was the time, this is what was enacted to establish a precedent".
>And burning people alive isn't something that God was strictly opposed to. In Leviticus 20:14, it's the punishment assigned in the case that a man has sex with both a woman and her mother -- they all get burned. In Leviticus 21, it's the punishment for when a priest's daughter prostitutes herself. God himself burns two people to death in Leviticus 10 for doing a ritual wrong in some way. And lets not the eternal fire that perhaps awaits many children who were unfortunate enough to not be introduced to Christianity and persuaded to agree with it. (assuming unbaptised babies aren't all going to hell, at what age does a person have enough responsibility that they can be condemned to eternal fire for having the wrong ideas about religion?)
To a tribe of people who still balked at a God who did great wonders and deliverance in the form of gifts. You want to quibble with "harshness" and "it's just not fair! be gentle with the people!" when said people were still easily swayed into Baal worship anyway, even after all was said and done and they assimilated with the people of the Canaanites and took on their ways (Something God explicitly told them not to do). It's formation in motion, because even the fall of depravity is God's plan into future pastures, as seen with the coming of Jesus Christ to confirm the OT.

And no, there's no basis to say "God chucked the babies into hell" with callous disregard. The material plane statement was made.

>>17806808
>Arguably child sacrifice isn't even something that God was strictly opposed to, since he didn't step in to prevent Jephthah from killing his daughter to keep a promise to God
The lesson of Jephthah was the makings of rash vows, which Jephthah foolishly made in the age of darkness where "everyone did what was right in their eyes" in the book of Judges. There's deliberate silence from God when Jephthah fulfilled his vow in the death of his daughter, he didn't go "well done" or "I accept". It showed how far the people fell from God's tenets in the time of Moses. The sacrifice of people was abominable to the Lord, and he was not the one that asked of such a vow in the first place.

>>17806898
>The lesson of Jephthah was the makings of rash vows
Yes, but his daughter didn't have anything to do with that, so why should she be punished?
>age of darkness where "everyone did what was right in their eyes"
As far as I can tell that phrase appears several chapters later, and it isn't saying they were all immoral. It's just saying they didn't have a king, so it was a bit of an anararchy. From Judges 17, "In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes."
>There's deliberate silence from God when Jephthah fulfilled his vow in the death of his daughter, he didn't go "well done" or "I accept"
It says the spirit of the Lord was on Jephthah when he made his vow, so God was surely present to him (more present than usual, however that works for an omnipresent being). And Jephthah and his daughter both thought they were doing what was right by the Lord in killing her. It seems very strange given all that that God would just remain silent if he were opposed it.

Interestingly, as far as I can tell God never really explicitly condemns child sacrifice (to Moloch yes, but to himself?). He did command Abraham to sacrifice his child but then gave him a lamb to sacrifice instead, and that would've been a great opportunity for God to say "Hey, by the way, this is universally a bad thing, and I never want anyone to do it." but he didn't.

In fact, he may have actually required child sacrifice himself at one point: https://www.thetorah.com/article/giving-your-firstborn-son-to-god
>the simplest interpretation of Exodus 22:28 is that it requires the slaughter of all firstborn sons. This is the view taken by many modern biblical scholars
>There are also several narrative texts that seem to portray child sacrifice as a legitimate practice, or at least do not explicitly condemn it
>Ezekiel 20:25-26 appears to understand the law as mandating the ritual slaughter of firstborn sons.

>>17806976
"The Spirit of the Lord" that was Jephthah when he made the vow could also have just made it so that he lost the battle for making a stupid vow rather than seemingly fulfilling its side of the vow but then (supposedly) not actually wanting Jephthah fulfill his side.

>>17806709
>Yeah, because all those people were engaged in Baal worship.
text refers to any town.

>>17806765
the problem is that you make asinine assertions with great confidence, then when proven wrong you just start talking about something else entirely, while we are still pondering whether this is an indication of you lack of awareness or mere basic christian dishonesty.

>>17808026
God allows people to own slaves. That's just the way It is.

>>17806550 (OP)
>>17806777 checked
>pretends people are infallible

>>17808049
And God says to free them every 7 years.