The Christian way of explaining contradictions

[Barry114149]

having read more of the website attached to the link I really do not think she looked through it. A google search for the term would come up with the link.

thank you all for your help so far, I am seeing her on fathers day and the conversation should be a good one. I will fill you all in.

[Bruce Long]

Hi Barry,

The contradiction article does nothing to assuage the problem of contradictions. You just have to find the right ones: those based upon immutables and non-negotiables.

The problem one runs into is the free scope for conceptual 'patching' available to theologians. Remember - one can do whatever one likes to a fiction. One can update the fictional basis and background at will without changing the story overmuch. One can invent reasons for things at will. If someone believes the fiction is true, then there is a ready tool for answering their doubts.

The Old Testament/New Testament justification, however, does not work. I used this in a response to a Guardian article for which I was the 'top commenter'.

The trick is that you have to set up the contradiction between 'immutables' You find things that the theist believer and theologian assert as undeniable. A good place to start is things associated with the character of the god character - what it/he is like. Those contradictions cannot be broken at all easily without really putting a lot of stress on the text and the 'gospel'.

Here is the text in case you couldn't read the link:

{
The God character does not change - ever:

"For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore yes sons of Jacob are not consumed." (Malachi3:6).

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Hebrews 13:8).

The Jesus character that may or may not have been based upon a real person to a greater or lesser extent is the same character as the god character (trinity metaphysically bits accounted for):

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:1; John 1:14).

(Words make reality for doctrine spinners, not vice versa.)

And again the Jesus character and the God character are the same character (with a double whammy on religionist gang warfare):

"30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do yes stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God" (John 10:30-33).
}


Other notes:

If you start debating on the basis of theology, you will be up against the impression that novice theologians can't possibly know as much about the bible as expert theologians. In terms of details of the text this is probably true. However, being an expert theologian is much like being an expert alchemist or an expert astrologer: it may require intellect and involve a body of knowledge, but that's beside the point. It is the irrelevance of theological expertise that has to be brought to the fore. There is no point trying not to be disrespectful about this (although its best not to be profanely rude): you just have to profess no respect for your sister's expert friends - not on the basis that they aren't smart, but because they are working with a broken epistemology and bad material (they may have various motivations from genuine to dodgy.)

Then there is the problem that 'the gospel' has lots of built in (built in over 100s of years of dealing with the most common and damaging retorts) peremptory demonisations of criticism. For example:

"The word of god is foolishness to those who are perishing".

Why do you think it is bunk? Because you are spiritually blinded by the devil character and your sin.

"...that which the world deems foolish in God is wiser than men's wisdom"

As above.

One of my favourites is that which most clearly evidences the long running battle between theologians and philosophers:

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" (Colossians 2:8)

All of the normal critical approaches are signs to the believer to IGNORE YOU.

(One of the most important jobs for historians and for critical analysts of texts is to find out the real origin of these insertions. If only a couple can be proven to be late additions, then the text falls apart. There is at least one I know of)


I know that when I was a believer (Baptist, then pentecostal) I didn't really pay much attention to critics of the bible and my faith. The epistemic and cognitive transplant - dogma and faith for rationality - short circuits the ability to think critically. I wouldn't have admitted that if you had criticised me. The things that got me out in the end were the inconsistencies and big kludge-patches for the doctrines that just kept nagging at my intellect (why save only some races at some late point in history, why would babies have to go to hell, what actually is sin anyway, what about people before the church began, etc.) Theologians can come up with some kind of answer to everything because all they have to do is back up to the mysterious and unassailable character of god.

If your sister was not originally a faithist, then it should be easier to reason with her. However, I was an atheist until about age 15, and it was hard to get myself out of it 15 years later. There's a lot of suppressed motivation associated with feelings of inadequacy and hopelessness in the face of mortality and the difficulty associated with being truly happy, but mostly I found it was the evangelical sell job and proselytisation that did the job. Part of the training is targeted at stopping one from using one's rational faculties normally and effectively. One of the things the new believer is taught very quickly is that you can't trust any worldly person's word with respect to the bible and its narratives. As soon as they had my ear, I was told that I should love my parents, but that they were of the devil. There is a lot of duplicity from the beginning (you can imagine this works well if a kid doesn't really like their parents much, or thinks they don't.) Anyone approaching me thus was 'worldy' and 'of the world'. They never really got a hearing. If anything penetrated - the brute requirement of faith came to mind. Doubt is okay as long as one has faith.

Your sister probably needs to decide on her own to value her own rational intellect over the intellect substitute that is scripture and intellectual submission to the church body and leaders. If she is a smart person and willing to listen to you, you can help by demonstrating that the scripture and its use is a tool devised to disarm her intellect. This is exceedingly difficult because any non-believer is pre-demonised. If you criticise scripture on a logical basis, you will be characterised as an enemy of the gospel, or as 'lost', or both. We atheists get a lot of schtick for arrogance, but frankly, nothing holds a candle to theism for arrogance and stubbornness. Some reference to narrative theories of mind - the way we build out internal stories - might help.

[StrangeControl]

I wouldn't worry about the contradictions (but they are numerous); ask her to explain the obvious factual errors.



Why is there is no mention of the microscopic world or the 99% of what happens in the spectrum we can't see. It (in the simplest of terms) demonstrates they only knew about things in their observable world and completely lacking in detail about anything outside of 3000ish kilometre radius.

Why doesn't the bible really know the differences between stars and the planets and that there is no real concept that our sol is just a star (just one of billions upon billions of others)?

It's a holey book alright.

[Loki]

If you start debating on the basis of theology, you will be up against the impression that novice theologians can't possibly know as much about the bible as expert theologians. In terms of details of the text this is probably true. However, being an expert theologian is much like being an expert alchemist or an expert astrologer: it may require intellect and involve a body of knowledge, but that's beside the point. It is the irrelevance of theological expertise that has to be brought to the fore. There is no point trying not to be disrespectful about this (although its best not to be profanely rude): you just have to profess no respect for your sister's expert friends - not on the basis that they aren't smart, but because they are working with a broken epistemology and bad material (they may have various motivations from genuine to dodgy.)

See The Courtier's Reply.

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor’s taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

[yrtemmyscirtemmysa]

Once you start interpreting the bible you can make it say what ever you want, if that was not the case then why on earth do we have many religions that claim to be christian and claim others not to be christian?

[youngmoigle]

It is a waste of time talking to a believer about biblical contradictions. On page 15 of his "Encyclopedia Of Bible Difficulties," Gleason Archer says that all contradictions can be explained - even if they cannot be explained! He says:

• Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it.
• We may have complete confidence that the divine Author preserved the human author of each book of the bible from error or mistake.
• The Bible is either the inerrant Word of God or else it is an imperfect record by fallible men.
• Once we come into agreement with Jesus that the Scripture is completely trustworthy and authoritative then it is out of the question for us to shift over to the opposite assumption.
• Unlike all other books known to man, the Scriptures come to us from God.
• When we are unable to understand God’s ways or unable to comprehend His words, we must bow before Him in humility and patiently wait for Him to clear up the difficulty.

[Bolero]

Originally Posted by youngmoigle

It is a waste of time talking to a believer about biblical contradictions. On page 15 of his "Encyclopedia Of Bible Difficulties," Gleason Archer says that all contradictions can be explained - even if they cannot be explained! He says:

• Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it.
• We may have complete confidence that the divine Author preserved the human author of each book of the bible from error or mistake.
• The Bible is either the inerrant Word of God or else it is an imperfect record by fallible men.
• Once we come into agreement with Jesus that the Scripture is completely trustworthy and authoritative then it is out of the question for us to shift over to the opposite assumption.
• Unlike all other books known to man, the Scriptures come to us from God.
• When we are unable to understand God’s ways or unable to comprehend His words, we must bow before Him in humility and patiently wait for Him to clear up the difficulty.

Ah, welcome to my (now officially over) marriage.

[the_gelf]

My favourite, simple one liner I am propounding frequently:
Why would an all powerful god be controlled by it's own vanity?

Thought process:
The bible claims that this god of yours is all powerful, correct?
If NO - > Then why call it a god (might as well worship a cardboard box)
If Yes - > So why is this god so vain it requires worship?
-> Any answer, or silence

Therefore it's not a god, as it is controlled by human emotions.
Something characterised with human emotions-> created by a human
Would love to hear what the response is

[the_gelf]

My favourite, simple one liner I am propounding frequently:
Why would an all powerful god be controlled by it's own vanity?
Thought process:
The bible claims that this god of yours is all powerful, correct?
If NO - > Then why call it a god (might as well worship a cardboard box)
If Yes - > So why is this god so vain it requires worship?
-> Any answer, or silence
Therefore it's not a god, as it is controlled by human emotions.
Something characterised with human emotions-> created by a human
Would love to hear what the response is