Contradictions

[Resha Caner]

BTW, I like the cartoon.

atheist Christians

sigh

Two weeks ago, in this same forum, I made reference to the 'flood'. The response? "I am not a Jew. The Old Testament is one thing, but I base my life on the teachings of Christ."

And again, sigh.

No need to change it when you can cherry pick.

Yeah, that's probably it.

Taking yourself as an example, if there were contradictions that you could see, something that could not be resolved, would it cause you to abandon your belief?

It depends what you mean. Do you mean my BELIEF or some of my beliefs? In the case of the latter, I have changed when the problems couldn't be resolved.

The example I use is my biological father. If someone were to ask me, "What would it take to convince you Caner Sr. doesn't exist?" I would be a bit perplexed. Um, well, since he's standing right over there, it would take quite a bit.

However, if someone came to me and said, "I can prove that even though your father says he's Republican, that he's actually a closet Democrat," well, they'd have a chance of convincing me of that.

 

[Crandaddy]

Then why not Eden? So, why didn't God instantiate the Beatific Vision in Eden?

Maybe the Beatific Vision requires that we freely choose God. This way, it's not forced upon us; we can have the choice of loving God or rejecting him. Thus, even Adam and Eve would have had this choice in Eden, and they pushed God away, as it were, by partaking of the forbidden fruit.

 

[Resha Caner]

Maybe the Beatific Vision requires that we freely choose God. This way, it's not forced upon us; we can have the choice of loving God or rejecting him. Thus, even Adam and Eve would have had this choice in Eden, and they pushed God away, as it were, by partaking of the forbidden fruit.

Interesting.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Since there isn't a Jeffersonian Christian Church, I wouldn't consider it successful - nor the Mormons. Joseph Smith did rewrite the Bible, but even the Mormons have discarded that effort. Ask them about that sometime. And the Book of Mormon is not a rewrite. It's akin to the Koran.

No argument wrt the Jefferson Bible not being really successful. But the Mormons do have quite a successful religion. Their membership might not tally up to billions, but millions is pretty, pretty good.

The Jehovah's Witnesses might be the closest thing to what I'm talking about ... not that I want to promote them as a valid alternative.


Flat earth & the skydome also go on my annoyance list. Like no modern person ever talks about "sunrise" without realizing that's not consistent with the Copernican cosmology. In the first place, the sun is no more a valid center than the earth, as several non-believers (such as Russell) have mentioned many times. It might be more parsimonious, but it doesn't have more veracity.

I am very sorry, but the Bible does have a cosmology that is pretty far away from our modern ones. And I don't think that that is just an artifact of language either. But, as I indicated, to me that is pretty small problem. If people think that the ancient Hebrews having been wrong about plenty of scientific things is not a problem for the Bible and their faith, then I am almost inclined to agree. (It is just, as I said that I don't have a horse in this race.) But if people are selling scientific accuracy, they have a problem.

Second, cultural phrasing (idiom) does need to be considered. With that said, the issue of idiom does raise interesting problems. Like anything else, there are valid and invalid uses of that argument.

I'm not sure I know what you mean.

You have never heard of this stuff about how the molten sea measured 10 feet across and 30 roundabout and how that is consistent with π if only you factor in the brim. It goes very well together with what you mentioned, like a match made in ... in ... oh, wherever.

 

[yasic]

Here are my answers:

1. As an unbeliever, why do you think Christians remain Christian when the inconsistencies have been known for so long?
I believe that most Christians have not fully looked into the contradictions or inconsistencies (In my experience, those who have not before but do end up non-christians).

Of those that did I believe many of them choose to ignore or block out them for others reasons such as keeping status among family or friends or within churches themselves or due to a strong desire for an afterlife.

Others I believe feel that there are more issues with no religion than religion and while accepting problems feel they are taking the answer that best describes the world.

Still there are others whom I feel are mentally incapable of understanding the issues presented and thus turn too authority figures on what to believe.

Many actually do fully accept the issues but instead lie to others about believing for personal gain (I have for instance spoken with a pastor of a large church and this man confided in me that he lost his faith a number of years back but due to him having children refuses to stop his work so as to be able to provide food for them)

And there are a few other smaller reasons as well.

2. As an unbeliever, why do you think no one has ever successfully corrected all those errors and reissued the "Newly Inspired Version" (NIV for those who get the joke) of the Bible?

I believe these come about all the time, namely in the form of interpretations of the bible and are more formally organized as denominations.

It has also been 'literally' done in the Jeffersonian Bible and The Book of Mormon.

3. As an unbeliever, are there any examples promoted as problems that you have decided are not problems?
Many atheists say that 'If god sends people to hell than he is evil' is an argument that 'god does not exist'. This annoys me to no end.

 

[Resha Caner]

But the Mormons do have quite a successful religion. Their membership might not tally up to billions, but millions is pretty, pretty good.

Yes, I suppose you could call then "successful," but not because of their Biblical rewrite, which was my point.

I am very sorry, but the Bible does have a cosmology that is pretty far away from our modern ones. And I don't think that that is just an artifact of language either. But, as I indicated, to me that is pretty small problem. If people think that the ancient Hebrews having been wrong about plenty of scientific things is not a problem for the Bible and their faith, then I am almost inclined to agree. (It is just, as I said that I don't have a horse in this race.) But if people are selling scientific accuracy, they have a problem.

OK, so you think it's a small problem, and you don't really care about it. But I'm still curious what your example would be.

 

[Resha Caner]

Many atheists say that 'If god sends people to hell than he is evil' is an argument that 'god does not exist'. This annoys me to no end.

I didn't expect this one. Why does that argument annoy you?

 

[Resha Caner]

So no one's a taker on the dialectic comment?

OK, so next question. One person says there is a contradiction in the Bible. Another says there is not. I think it might be interesting to disect such arguments.

Amongst the various types (historical, philosophical, scientific) which do you think can be successfully formalized?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yes, I suppose you could call then "successful," but not because of their Biblical rewrite, which was my point.

Admittedly, I don't know all that much about the Book of Mormom. But I think you may well be right here. However, I think it would also be fair to point out that the success of (other) denominations of Christianity seems to only have tangentially got to do with the Bible. Big denominations, like the Roman Catholic Church for instance. (I grew up in a predominantly Catholic region. As a Lutheran, though.)

Incidentally, this seems to tie in very nicely with main point of your thread. For some people the Bible doesn't seem to play all that big a role. It is totally inconceivable to me that the people I grew up with would have cared for some contradiction or so in the Bible, when the vast bulk of their religion revolves around doing processions, going to church, talking about Saints, celebrating church holidays etc pp.

OK, so you think it's a small problem, and you don't really care about it.

Small nitpick. I said that I don't really care for the oughts of Bible interpretation. I do have a soft spot, if you will, for and some interest in the first creation story for instance.

But I'm still curious what your example would be.

Examples? Didn't I give examples already, or is it something else you are asking about?

 

[yasic]

I didn't expect this one. Why does that argument annoy you?

At no point have I ever found a law of the universe stating that "if something is evil then it does not exist" nor one stating "If hell exists than god does not"

The argument that 'if hell exists then god is evil' can be used in two ways:
1. You take the premise that hell exists thus proving that God is evil.
2. You take the premise that God is not evil thus proving hell does not exist.

Neither of those two conclusions in any way show that God does not exist.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm not going to make it easy for you ... though the theological problem I mentioned is one of them. If someone wanted to take me to task on that, I don't think I'd have a good answer. I guess I need to work on that.

I didn't think you'd make it easy for me, I just wanted an example.

Like I said, sometimes someone finds one. I have been caught off guard from time to time - much more so in my younger days than now. The last one I can remember that caught me off guard was Wiccan's, "How do you know your god isn't an evil god pretending to be a good god?" question. What's interesting is that for most questions, once I have the answer it seems stupidly simple and almost self-evident. It's the tough ones where my answers are still a bit shaky that I'm not going to tell you about ... except for the one I've already mentioned.

Is the answer that a God which acts good is a good God?

Anyway, that question doesn't seem all that threatening to me. It seems like more like an interesting puzzle rather than an attack on a belief.

You're right. I realized that after I posted it. Alright, another one. The genealogies in Matthew & Luke. There are several explanations for it, but in keeping with what I said to Crandaddy, no reason to choose one over another. I've even thought of one that I don't think anyone has ever mentioned ... not that adding to the mess would help.

I did extensive genealogical research on my own family at one time, and it gets very confusing. There is a tendency to name kids in honor of respected patriarchs and matriarchs of the family. Plus, at one time, intermarriage, "taking in" orphaned relatives as your own, and "banishing" unsavory relatives (literally wiping their names out of the family Bible) was more common. As such, you end up with a mess of relatives all with the same name who are intermarrying and living with a variety of different step-families. It creates a situation where you can actually have multiple genealogies for the same person that are both legitimate ... i.e. not the Mary vs. Joseph argument that is often used, but that Mary might have had 2 legitimate genealogies.

Anyway, it creates some interesting issues beyond genealogy - for YEC and all the other misinformed readings of the Biblical history.

My answer was similar. That sometimes people would be skipped over and not included. Something like that.

Yeah, but remember that my answer makes sense and is correct. I don't know why people keep forgetting that.

Oh right, I do keep forgetting.

 

[quatona]

Finally, the questions:
1. As an unbeliever, why do you think Christians remain Christian when the inconsistencies have been known for so long? (Though I'm sure someone will say it, I'll try to poison the well and say I'm not interested in answers like, "Because they're a deluded bunch of lunatics" or "Because they're insecure and need a crutch." Rather, I'll lead into question 2 ...)

a. Because the bible leaves a lot of space for interpretation.
b. Depending on your view what the bible actually is (the inerrant word of god, ...., a metaphorical attempt of humans to describe their beliefs at a certain point in time - and everything in between), contradictions appear more or less relevant for your beliefs.

2. As an unbeliever, why do you think no one has ever successfully corrected all those errors and reissued the "Newly Inspired Version" (NIV for those who get the joke) of the Bible?

Because the believers didn´t find them significant.

3. As an unbeliever, are there any examples promoted as problems that you have decided are not problems?

From this non-believer´s perspective they aren´t problems per se. They start to be problems not until a certain understanding of the bible is applied inconsistently.

 

[Resha Caner]

Examples? Didn't I give examples already, or is it something else you are asking about?

Sort of, but I interpreted them as idiomatic and you seem to indicate that what you have in mind is not. So, I thought quoting some specific scripture might help clarify.

Neither of those two conclusions in any way show that God does not exist.

Gottcha. I guess I never really took that as an argument that God doesn't exist, but more of a "then I want nothing to do with him" statement. Even then I find it kind of funny. Suppose Zeus is the god of the universe, with all his petty Greek hangups. Well, I guess you'd better pacify the dude because it doesn't seem like he'll just go away and leave you alone. He enjoys meddling too much.

 

[Resha Caner]

Is the answer that a God which acts good is a good God?

That's close to how I answer. However, the crux of the question balances on knowing God's end game. What if he's nice to me for my whole life, and then the "real" god sends me to the pit of despair for being wrong. And the false god does nothing because that's what he wanted.

Three things: 1) We don't know this hypothetical evil god's end game (or at least we don't know that he's lying). Shrug. If I can't know it, then its irrelevant and I'm not going to fret about it. 2) If the "real" god is so small that not even the tiniest bit of light can shine through the ruse of the "false" god, then he's not much of a god. If the "false" god is really that powerful, what do you expect me to do about it? 3) (your answer) Until such time as the goodness of God fails me, I don't see why I should question it. Why do I need to make a preemptive strike against something that is good?

My answer was similar. That sometimes people would be skipped over and not included. Something like that.

Do you still think that answer is suitable? If not, what changed? Or we can go back to Judas if you prefer. Come on. Dissect this with me.

From this non-believer´s perspective they aren´t problems per se. They start to be problems not until a certain understanding of the bible is applied inconsistently.

Hmm. It's always fun to see the array of answers. So, do you have an example where you think exegesis has been applied inconsistently?

 

[Paradoxum]

That's close to how I answer. However, the crux of the question balances on knowing God's end game. What if he's nice to me for my whole life, and then the "real" god sends me to the pit of despair for being wrong. And the false god does nothing because that's what he wanted.

Three things: 1) We don't know this hypothetical evil god's end game (or at least we don't know that he's lying). Shrug. If I can't know it, then its irrelevant and I'm not going to fret about it. 2) If the "real" god is so small that not even the tiniest bit of light can shine through the ruse of the "false" god, then he's not much of a god. If the "false" god is really that powerful, what do you expect me to do about it? 3) (your answer) Until such time as the goodness of God fails me, I don't see why I should question it. Why do I need to make a preemptive strike against something that is good?

I was pretty much thinking the same sort of things.

Do you still think that answer is suitable? If not, what changed? Or we can go back to Judas if you prefer. Come on. Dissect this with me.

Yeah, I guess so. Bible contradictions aren't a big thing for me, since I know most can be gotten round with clever wording.

The answer for Judas tends to be that Judas hung himself, then as his body decayed it bloated, so when his neck broke, and he fell, his insides came out.

It makes sense, but it also seems strange. If God were in control of the writing, why would he make it look like a contradiction? Why not get the story straight the first time, rather than relying on theologians to give the Bible a helping hand?

Also, there are problems like Jesus saying that he would return in the lifetime of those alive then (I think that is right). It sounds as if Jesus' followers thought Jesus' return was to be very soon.

Then there are things that seem to be immoral. Eg: getting a bear to kill people because they laughed at a prophet; and genocide. I know the Christian answers to these two, but they seem to reply on the Hebrews being super important, or God being able to break moral laws because he is God.

Anything I say isn't aimed at trying to take away your faith. I know it hurts.

 

[Gadarene]

Gottcha. I guess I never really took that as an argument that God doesn't exist, but more of a "then I want nothing to do with him" statement. Even then I find it kind of funny. Suppose Zeus is the god of the universe, with all his petty Greek hangups. Well, I guess you'd better pacify the dude because it doesn't seem like he'll just go away and leave you alone. He enjoys meddling too much.

The word you're looking for is "integrity".

 

[Resha Caner]

It makes sense, but it also seems strange. If God were in control of the writing, why would he make it look like a contradiction? Why not get the story straight the first time, rather than relying on theologians to give the Bible a helping hand?

How about some rhetorical questions?

If the Bible presented a "perfect" story, would you be more inclined to believe it or would you think it had been fabricated?

If all the gospels were exactly the same, why would we need more than one? One objection I've run across is the claim that Mark was written first and the other gospels obviously borrowed from Mark, making it clear they weren't eyewitnesses but were just passing on what they heard, and as such invalidating those gospels. Hmm.

As it is, why do we need more than one? Would you be satisfied that the story was true if there were only one source? What is the value of multiple sources? Is it to compare them? Or because one connects better with a Jew, another with a Gentile? Or all of the above?

What would be the more honest gospel? To write what you know or to fill in the gaps so the story flows better and matches better with what others say? Isn't it the honest version that you want?

What is "inspiration"? God replacing your thoughts with his, or God helping you to keep the true of what you know and discard the errant?

What is it I'm really after here? Well, to ask how applicable it would be to apply something like this to these "contradictions"?
Contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gottservant]

A contradiction in the expression of God, does not stop you doing the work of God.

Someone who does the work of God, can easily ignore a contradiction.

Those who neither want contradictions, nor work, are not worth any one's time.

 

[Paradoxum]

How about some rhetorical questions?

If the Bible presented a "perfect" story, would you be more inclined to believe it or would you think it had been fabricated?

I might be more inclined, but it isn't a big thing for me. I changed my belief to the Bible being inspired, but not infallible, and I was ok with that. It made alot more sense.

If all the gospels were exactly the same, why would we need more than one? One objection I've run across is the claim that Mark was written first and the other gospels obviously borrowed from Mark, making it clear they weren't eyewitnesses but were just passing on what they heard, and as such invalidating those gospels. Hmm.

As it is, why do we need more than one? Would you be satisfied that the story was true if there were only one source? What is the value of multiple sources? Is it to compare them? Or because one connects better with a Jew, another with a Gentile? Or all of the above?

You could say that the different gospels focus on different aspects of the story more. That they are useful in that way. But they would still get the facts right too.

What would be the more honest gospel? To write what you know or to fill in the gaps so the story flows better and matches better with what others say? Isn't it the honest version that you want?

If you are human and accept that you are fallible then yes.

What is "inspiration"? God replacing your thoughts with his, or God helping you to keep the true of what you know and discard the errant?

It could be inspired them, but not necessarily infallible then. How many angels were there at the tomb? Did God really command the mass murder of women and children? Or did some people use God to justify their immoral actions, as has happened through history.

What is it I'm really after here? Well, to ask how applicable it would be to apply something like this to these "contradictions"?
Contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Sort of, but I interpreted them as idiomatic and you seem to indicate that what you have in mind is not. So, I thought quoting some specific scripture might help clarify.

I am lazy today and just cite the Catholic Encyclopedia on the "Firmament":
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Firmament
This is roughly my thinking too, scriptures included. And even though the entry dates from about 1917 it looks OK.