Keith&Co.

Over at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, we often get people who say they've read the entire list of supposed contradictions, and none of them are convincing because anyone with (fill in the blank:
half a brain
any knowledge of the bible
the Holy Ghost in their heart
) can see that there is no contradiction.

The most common response of the skeptics is to say: "okay. Pick one. Resolve it."

I think that most of them honestly believe that we aren't finding contradictions as much as we're forcing a contradiction into the text. Motivated by our desperate need for there to not be a god. So they really think that saying there IS a solution, we'll realize we've been busted and remove it.

But for analysis, an explanation isn't an answer until it:
1) addresses all the concerns in the instance
2) explains why all other explanations are not possible.

For them, it is enough that some story, some (more or less) plausible story can be construed, that we then cannot call it a contradiction. But if other plausible stories are available, you still have to discount them before you're done. You have to show that THIS is what the author meant.

One guy's solution to the Easter Problem is to just decide that every time the gospels say a group of women approached the tomb, it was a different group. It's a brilliant approach. And solves a great many biblical problems. We could use the same argument to show that Moses did write the Pentateuch. Just add three or four guys named Moses, each at different times, in different styles, probably with different pens.
And if we have three messiahs named Jesus, then their births could each meet some of the conflicting time references, speak the conflicting quotes.
And with two or more Jesuses, we can have two Judases, solving the problem of the two Judas deaths...

Of course, the poster doesn't like to think that his defense could apply to all contradictions, just the one he's trying to solve.

Pappy Jack

Well, of course, but then the concept of god is the prerogative of the devotees involved. Along the lines of Groucho's refusal to join any club that would have him as a member, if I was god I would decline to be worshipped in any YEC church that tried to embrace me.

I pretty much agree with everything else you wrote in the rest of your post.

Lucretius

Actually as someone who is pretty much agnostic regarding the whole
HJ v MJ argument I have at times thought that maybe just maybe some of the NT is a compilation of different life stories of various "Messiah Figures" of that time.
I hasten to add I have absolutley no evidence of this (but then again that doesn't seem to bother Christians much ) but for that fact that variious "Messiah figures " other than the Bibilcal Jesus appear to be mentioned by Josephus.

-Jay-

That was kind of my point. Many, many times I've heard the response "well, I can't imagine that God would <do something petty/naughty/dumber than a box of hair>", which of course begs the question of why God would be constrained by any person's concept of him in the first place.

I think you're onto a very good point, here, Lucretius. There's a definite tendency to belittle the capabilities of any given individual (particularly women - that's perhaps another thread topic...). An interesting aspect of this is that people who are very competent and confident in other areas suddenly lose all confidence in their reasoning ability when they're faced with a doctrinal issue, and instead retreat to a mode of letting their pastor or church elder do their thinking for them.

regards,

NinJay

Joe Banks

Good topic, I've found this to be an interesting thread.

How do people learn to put the bible ahead of everything else? I think we all have seen the passive and sometimes not so passive conditioning (the repeated references to the bible as authoritive or even the literal word of God, the pervasive emphasis on faith over reason, etc) but in some places the active teaching is certainly there too.

Having recently watched a multipart video series advocating a fundamentalist worldview and participating in discussion after each episode with some of my more fundie friends, ("The Truth Project" from Focus on the Family), I can say for certain that yes, at least some people are specifically taught to ignore not only mainstream science but simply any source not sharing in their biblical worldview.

The videos are used as a grass roots evangelical witnessing tool that people get from their church and if they like them, they invite their friends over and host their own sessions. The sad part is that the videos are quite political, though generally in implicit ways and always framed in religious language. Its creepy. Part of the appeal I think, at least for my friends, is that they feel they are at the very least believing in a "good" way of living. It must be good, its religious.

Having never explicitly thought about the difference between apologetics and witnessing before, I think those videos and that group of people were doing a combination, but the heavy emphasis was on witnessing. That was the more effective tool. The people had no interest in hearing evidence for the views espoused. There needn't be evidence presented for something when the viewer already "knows" it to be true.

-Jay-

Welcome, Joe. Glad you're enjoying the discussion. I'm interested in the videos you mention. Specific teachings imply conscious intent, which in turn implies a recognition that the views being taught are contradicted by, well, everything else. This suggests that in at least some cases, religion is being used as a cover ploy for nothing more than power plays. (Yes, folks, I know that's a trivially obvious statement overall...)

So do these videos present morality as being something that is impossible without God? I've recently seen the slogan "No Good without God" turning up. How is the connection made between good/moral and God? How are people sold on the idea that you can't have one without the other?

It sounds like you're saying that it's a matter of affirmation - if we tell you something is true often enough, you'll come to accept it. Now, if they did this right, there should be a component of the videos that addresses "when you start to think all this is bullshit, here's why it isn't" (I'm paraphrasing...). Did you observe anything like that?

regards,

NinJay
(afdave: 2=/=14)

Joe Banks

It is not implied, it is explicitly stated. Especially in the first 2 of the 12 part series, the video purports to be about the truth, hence the title. The video teaches that truth is the reason Jesus lived and died. There was actually a slide that said the bible = truth, the world = untruth.

In this case, absolutely religion is used for political purposes. Political in two senses. One, in terms of the goals of furthering the Christian Right in American politics. Two, in terms of the goals of making FoF a lead player within that group. The speaker in the video, Del Tackett, was part of Bush 1's administration and now works for FoF which advocates conservative social policy from a religious perspective. Yeah, no surprise there, but what was surprising to me was just how oblivious my friends were to that. They did not think it was political, just thought is was religious even though the take home message of each video was essentially: beware of anyone, especially a politician, who is not following Christ.


Yes. It teaches that our understanding of right and wrong is directly dependent on our worldview: and the only true worldview is the Christian worldview, so any other understanding of right and wrong is necessarily incorrect. Naturally a few logical fallacies are used to support this such as false dilemmas of choosing between being created by our Lord or being created by primordial ooze.



If doubts are addressed, it is in two ways that I can recall: One, everything can be explained from a Christian worldview, and any other worldview is false so don't worry. Two, if you hear that still small voice doubting this or that, you are being influenced by Satan. Though an entirely meaningless and superstitious statement to me, it was clearly very powerful to others there. This audience has long been taught that Satan literally exists and literally tries to deceive you with the strict intention of pulling you away from your relationship to God. So, it is natural that they would feel that ignoring (or even preaching against) that doubt was a victory over Satan and a step closer to God.

-Jay-

You've got me very interested in seeing these videos now.


Political manipulation and religious manipulation use a very similar (arguably identical) set of techniques to accomplish their goals. It's not surprising at all to see the two blended here.

Which ties back to Bible = truth. Got it. So even the word "truth" is loaded now...


The Satan angle is one I've seen before, and I agree that it has a very powerful influence. For example, if you're in a car wreck (and you're on your way to church), it's Satan trying to interfere. If you survive, God's hand was in play (no matter if several othes died in the same incident...). Now, interestingly, in my limited experience, if that notional car wreck happened while you were on your way to, say, a football game, the the other driver is an idiot, and Satan isn't invoked. Now, the question I'd pose now is:

Is the Bible = truth mindset taught before the Satan is gonna getcha part? Seems like it would have to be, to preempt the notion that if Satan can directly influence the world, why couldn't he have noodled with the Bible as well?

regards,

NinJay
(afdave 2=/=14)

Joe Banks

I'd be very interested in hearing your reaction to it, if you ever get a chance. It pretty well freaked me out. I must confess, I did not watch the entire series but I made it through half the episodes and that was all I could take. It was tough to commit a whole Friday night every week for 12 weeks for this, even though it was somewhat fascinating.


hmm, I don't know which is taught first, or if it is all woven together. Probably varies by community, church, age, etc. Could work either way I bet. For children, the fear of satan/hell is pretty powerful so I suspect that strategy is especially persuasive early on.

It would be interesting to pose the question of satan altering the bible to a fundamentalist. The question actually assumes their worldview so it may mean even more to them than to us? On a similar note, I have heard the argument that Satan magically and retroactively planted mythology similar to Christianity in humanity's past specifically to deceive us into thinking Christianity is similarly a myth. Much like the "God planted dinosaur fossils to test our faith" but even more logically twisted I think.

-Jay-

That sounds strangely like the approach taken by the great philosopher and bloody lunatic, L. Ron Hubbard...

It's interesting to note just how much power and influence that arguments like planted mythologies and altered histories implicitly ascribe to the character that's supposed to ultimately always lose. Of course, by saying that Satan can (and does) alter reality to deceive us, so anything that seems contrary to the Christian Worldview^TM is explained away, they've constructed a tidy logic-proof box that lets them avoid harsh realities.

regards,

NinJay