Regarding the first issue, the consensus among Christians is that the only unforgivable sin, which Jesus called "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost," is rejecting the forgiveness that God otherwise offers. — aletheist

This is what you said ^^^

In the link I posted it says "The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity. Titus 2:13-14

You cited the consensus among Christians. there is no consensus. there is lots of schisms among Christianity on interpretations of the bible.

There is also this verse

Hebrews 10:26, "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins."

Yet in Revelation 3:5 it says

"The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life"

This a classic numerical contradiction:


2 Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri.

As I said before ...

If I came to believe that you were sincerely seeking the truth, and thus open to changing your mind, I would be glad to discuss others ... Anyone can quote and compare words written in just about any literary work of significant length to create alleged contradictions. Studying the text as a whole and trying to reconcile them is hard work. — aletheist

In this particular case, because you were clearly trying to generate an obvious counterexample in an effort to disparage my purported approach. If I came across that same sentence within a poem, I would be inclined to evaluate it differently. Would you like to suggest some other circumstances in which it would make sense? — aletheist

You are missing the point. Do you think that if I MADE UP a bunch of other stuff to accompany that it would make a difference? I could fabricate more such nonsense to accompany the blue sky/grey sky nonsense and you and I will both know its made up nonsense and its still on the same footing as the bible. Made up.
Also, you are dodging here. You said charitable reading is your default...but its not, you just showed it isnt. Your default is skepticism of contradiction, you just dont apply it to the bible because doing so threatens your cherished belief.

You said charitable reading is your default...but its not, you just showed it isnt. — DingoJones

I stated quite plainly that I was talking about apparent contradictions across a much larger text, especially one that has been carefully scrutinized by scholars for centuries. If you think that you can judge and dismiss me on the basis of one brief exchange on an Internet forum ... well, cheers.

And I pointed out why your “apparent contradictions accross a much larger text” is an absurd argument, which you ignored. Just like you ignored your own special pleading and how your own standards arent being applied to your special book.

Im not sure who you think you are talking to here. Was that supposed to address something I said? Im the one that agreed with you. — DingoJones

Sorry I was feeling upset yesterday. But I did not like comments like this, from other people

"Yes, literally contradictory. Oh dear, God screwed up. Woe is you!"
and
"So, you haven't read it? And I am pretty sure you do not understand it - as a whole book. "

My initial point was to ask do contradictions discredit something. I feel that people (not you) ignored that topic to focus on defending the bible.
So I had to point out what is at stake like the threat of hell, condemnation for homosexuality (my own experience) but also historically there has been the crusades, wars, the inquisition, Witch hunts, burning people to stake for heresy and so on. That is why I felt disheartened when biblical doctrine and disagreements has been the source of a lot of evils.

Ok, I understand. Like I said, of course you should be skeptical of something as contradictory as the bible.

Quite right. Theology is intellectual tennis without a net. When it comes to "my religion vs. yours," contradictions for thee, but not for me. Torture a text long enough, and it will confess to anything; that doesn't mean that the Bible isn't internally inconsistent in a number of ways.

Something could be completely consistent but untrue. If the bible never contradicted itself that would not entail that it was true.

I think the problem is how can something that contradicts itself be true. To me it is kind of crazy to try and juggle and justify contradiction.

..of course you should be skeptical of something as contradictory as the bible. — DingoJones

And everyone should in my opinion.

I don't see why requesting reason and logic could be a bad thing. There may be other ways of exploring reality but reason and logic are very productive.
It seems to me people want to fall back on interpretation and allegory sometimes simply to avoid scrutiny.

It would help alot if religious people could see the distinction between the belief in god and the belief in religion. They wouldnt cling so steadfast to an obviously man made, fallible and grossly outdated book if it didnt so directly threaten their belief in god.