Contradictions

Contradictions

I shouldn't have to waste time defining a contradiction. But when it comes to religious discourse, the whole game often comes down to definitions and pinning down the parties to specifics. Christians hate being specific about anything because the more specific they are, the more falsifiable their claims become. And above all, they need to avoid falsifiable claims. That means they will have to come up with a definition that keeps the bible free of contradictions.

The funny thing is there are plenty of Christians who will say that it is possible for the bible to have contradictions. They want to sound reasonable and try to defuse the issue before it blows up in their face. But I have yet to talk to a conservative Christian who thinks contradictions are possible who will actually acknowledge a particular contradiction. They fight every one of them tooth and nail, even when the contradiction is clear. They admit the possibility without ever acknowledging a specific one.

They understand how devastating a true contradiction would be. An evangelical could never abide it due to their high view of scripture. A liberal has no problem pointing out contradictions. But they are exactly the kind of Christians that conservatives decry and would never admit to being.

All Christians believe in some level of biblical inerrancy. Jesus and his teachings cannot be found elsewhere in literature. If you are going to hold to any of the claims about Jesus that matter, you have to believe that biblical writers are capturing enough of the inerrant truth to make a decision for Jesus. Nothing in history testifies to the words and deeds of the Hebrew god outside of the book. That means Hebrew scripture also has to be inerrant enough to convey truths about this character.

Contradictions undermine the authority of scripture. That is because a contradiction violates the laws of logic. Contradictions in the bible render the claims illogical. Christians don't want to be backed into the corner of proclaiming an illogical faith. An illogical faith cannot be sustained or sold.

Critical mass

Given that some contradictions are unavoidable, how many does it take to reach critical mass? Those of us who say that all it takes is one are shouted down with cries of how unreasonable we are. My argument is that if the book can be wrong about one thing, it can be wrong about other things, a few things, many things, maybe even everything that matters. Once the camel's nose is in the tent, you can't keep out the humps.

Christians are fearful of a slippery slope argument because one false thing in the book undermines the whole. All scripture is given by inspiration of god and is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof, and instruction in righteousness so that the man of god can be perfect, thoroughly furnished in all good works. (Yes, that's a reference.)

But a scripture that is wrong is still inspired by god, otherwise, it would be wrong that all scripture is by the inspiration of god. More problematic is the fact that the wrong scripture cannot be profitable for doctrine. Otherwise, that doctrine would be wrong.

It cannot be good for correction and reproof. It cannot be good for instruction in righteousness. It cannot perfect or equip for all good works if it's wrong. That is the entailment of one contradiction. If the possibility of many contradictions is allowed, it undermines the authority of scripture. Evangelicals know it and will fight any proposed contradiction with all their might.

They would rather give up one of their beliefs than admit a contradiction. If two beliefs are in tension due to a contradiction, they would rather admit they might be wrong about the lesser one so that they can buy enough time to come up with a harmonization. Giving up a minor doctrine still hurts. But that is better than giving up both. And they have to be careful to do it in a way that doesn't undermine scripture. It is a delicate dance that no one should accept. The problem is that one accepted contradiction really does undermine everything.

Still, let's say I'm wrong (as most Christians will) how many contradictions does it take? Believers will never give you a number. I listen to a lot of live discussions between Christians and atheists. The atheist will bait the Christian with the possibility that the bible has multiple contradictions. The believer, often with little knowledge of what the bible says, takes the bait. The contradiction is shown. Rather than admitting the contradiction, the Christian petulantly demands they show another, and another, and another, without ever acknowledging the validity of any of them.

They act like a contradiction would make a difference to their faith because they are pretending to be reasonable. But when it comes right down to it, their dishonesty is exposed and they fall back on, his ways are higher and we are not meant to understand all mysteries.

Sometimes, still pretending to be reasonable and sincere, they will say that they haven't been long in the faith and will have to further study these contradictions. They never come back to deliver their findings. They just want to leave the call without doing damage to the authority of scripture. That is always their highest priority. There can never be a critical mass of contradictions that would move the needle for them.

Not understandable

The doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture is the idea that scripture is understandable. People can pick it up and readily understand what is being said. The problem with this doctrine is that it plainly isn't true. Even the rare Christian who regularly studies their bible has to admit that there is much of it that they don’t understand.

Perspicuity of scripture is one of the first arguments tossed from the window in the face of contradictions. They can't deny that the words in question are in the book. They have no choice but to admit that some things are hard to understand. Often, they will say something to the effect that we won't understand some things till Jesus returns and explains it. So I have to repeat the question: How many hard-to-understand passages does it take before the doctrine of perspicuity is proven false?

Matters of first importance

Paul offers believers a way out of the problem in 1 Cor. 15 where he summarizes a certain doctrine and describes it as a matter of first importance. Many Christians grasp this idea as though it were their lifeline in the middle of the raging sea. They now have permission to ignore some things since they are less important. That is another strategy for dealing with contradictions.

It is not that they will acknowledge the contradiction. Rather, they simply say that the teaching is not a matter of first importance and therefore it is not necessary that they understand it fully. This bifurcates the book into two categories: primary doctrines and secondary doctrines.

The problem is one that I point out every time this idea comes up. How do we know which doctrines are primary vs. secondary? This is roughly the time when I am asked about a given creed. The various creedal statements serve as official summaries of the gospel and important teachings. This type of person would say that if it is in the creed, it’s primary. If it’s not in the creed, it’s secondary.

Of course, we know that the book never provides such a list. There are no exhaustive creedal formulations in the book. If there were such statements, we wouldn't need later creeds as summaries. The creeds were championed at different times by different people with differences in the statements. That is because they disagreed with some aspect of previous creeds and wanted to correct them. They agreed on some things but not others.

To this day, some churches and denominations refuse to fellowship with others because of these differences, and countless others. If this mythical agreement really existed, there would be no need for all these denominations. Knowing what is primary and secondary becomes an exercise in competitive hermeneutics. No two Christians have exactly the same set of primary and secondary doctrines. So that idea is fine in theory. But in practice, it does nothing for deciding which contradictions are worth trying to harmonize.

Words don't mean words

Another way the Christian avoids contradictions is to redefine, or assume the contradictory words have a different meaning. They have no reason to believe this other than the fact that if standard definitions were applied, it would create a contradiction. And they are fully committed to the idea that there can be no contradictions.

When these words are in play, Christians suddenly become Greek and Hebrew experts. They grab the closest lexicon (usually, not a good one) and start splitting hairs over the possibilities of meanings. They find one they can live with and then confidently declare that the word, in this instant, can only mean the other thing that provides the most wiggle room. These are people who are not even close to experts in the English language. Yet they believe they are on par with scholars of original languages. Heck! Translating the bible - how hard could it be? Am I right?

The best example that comes to mind is the word, "eved". It is translated as slave most of the time, including the times you are thinking of. Here is a fuller definition according to some random AI:

The Hebrew word Eved (עֶבֶד) translates to "servant," "slave," or "worshipper." It is derived from the root avad (ע-ב-ד), which means "to serve," "to work," or "to worship."

In the Hebrew bible, eved is used to describe several different roles:

A servant or slave: Someone working in a household or bound to a master.

A worshipper: Because the root word means both "to serve" and "to worship," an eved of god is someone who serves and worships Him.

A title of honor: The highest title given to figures like Moses, David, and the prophets was Eved YHWH (Servant of the Lord), signifying a person chosen for a sacred mission.

With this definition in hand, the slavery passages are no longer talking about slavery. They are talking about maids and butlers. They are talking about hired hands. At worst, they are talking about debt service. They also describe a person who is in an honored relationship. But those slavery passages are never talking about, you know, slavery.

They forget all about the idea of context. Go ahead and substitute slave for voluntary servant or hired hand into the slavery passages (you know the ones) and see how it goes. The passages would become meaningless bowls for word salad. They would be rendered incomprehensible.

That is just what the Christian wants. They would rather the passages be incomprehensible than clear because the clear meaning is chattel slavery most of the time. When it is temporary debt service or voluntary service for hire, the meanings are clear. But when the words are translated as slave and the context supports that translation, the meaning is unclear until one of the newly minted and utterly dishonest armchair language experts comes along and explains it for us.

Christians are happy saying out loud that when the bible says the Jews could source slaves from surrounding nations and own them as property for life, and pass those slaves down to their kids as an inheritance, it wasn't talking about chattel slavery, but mere debt service on a temporary basis. At that point, they lose the right to be taken seriously and should be treated like the liars they are. For them, words don’t mean words.

Conditional and limited

This possibility can be used for certain types of contradictions. Mainly, they are used for those times when god doesn't follow through on a promise or threat. There are some legitimate cases of this in the book. god will use an if/then formulation to indicate that the people have a role to play in the outcome. If they obey or repent, then option A is activated. If not, then they get option B.

However, there are times when this simply doesn't work. When god promises to utterly destroy Tyre, there were no conditions. He made very specific claims that archeology and present-day observation disprove. The problem is that the city is still there and doing just fine. In 2017, Tyre had a population of 125,000. Not bad for an utterly destroyed city.

Naturally, the Christian goes into words don't mean words. But they quickly transition to conditional and limited. Since there are no conditions, they will sometimes claim that the original promise was hyperbole and the spirit of the more limited promise was carried out. The city was not utterly destroyed, never to be rebuilt. Rather, it was devastated and will never regain its former glory. You see, the promise was limited. Why? Because the promise plainly never came true but god can't be a liar.

god promised a specific allotment of land to his people. There were no conditions tied to that original promise. Possibly, conditions were added later. Either way, the Christian would argue that there were implied conditions. They never occupied the full measure of promised land.

Even in the book, some declare that god fulfilled his promise while also acknowledging that they didn't have all of the land. Either the promise was limited, or there was a split fulfillment. They had one part of the land and would receive the rest at a later time if they continued faithfully. So any part of a fulfillment is considered total fulfillment for that limited time and season. So why did they never control all of the land? They broke the condition, or something like that.

My favorite one has to be the promise that there would always be a Levitical priest doing sacrifices in the temple. But always obviously can't mean now because there is no temple. When there was a version of the temple, always was a lot more temporary than anyone figured.

The Hebrews writer was blunt and just ripped off the bandage. There would never be another Levitical priest because that priestly system was bad, inadequate, and out-of-date. It wasn't conditional. But it was very limited. The original promise was a forever promise. The writer of Hebrew ignored the original promise and rhetorically killed it.

All of god's original forever promises became limited, temporary, and unceremoniously pounded to dust. That said, there is yet another way Christians deal with obvious contradictions that we need to explore before wrapping up:

Spiritual

Religion's get-out-of-jail-free card is spiritualization. Any contradiction or broken promise can be resolved by calling some part of it a spiritual revelation. They get bonus points if they parrot the idea that only spiritual people can comprehend it.

There was never a promise that Jesus would physically rule in Jerusalem as a king. That was all spiritual, don't you know? Jesus didn't tell his disciples to buy swords in the physical. That was a spiritual saying. Hey, did you know that not everyone who lives by the sword dies by the sword? Many go on to have a full and happy life. But don't worry, that was spiritual.

You get the idea.

Conclusion: I choose neither

When you have two choices of contradicting texts, how can you tell which one is right and which you should toss out as a mistake? In the case of religious texts, there is no way to tell because the only measuring tools are spiritual. In such a case, I choose neither. I believe that is the only right answer. Just as in War Games, the only winning move is not to play.

One day, god declares to all that he will punish those who do not obey him to the fourth generation. The next proverbial day, he says that such punishments are no longer going to happen. Which is the foundation for a good justice system. I choose neither. I will get my idea of justice from another source altogether.

When Jesus was called good by a stranger, he retorted that only god was good. Was he god or not? I choose neither. There is no reason to take any position about such a malleable character. One day god says to love your neighbor. The next day, he says enslave your neighbor or go to war with your neighbor. When love your neighbor can also mean drive them off of their land upon pain of death, I will look elsewhere for moral counseling.

The real question is why anyone would accept this problematic text as authoritative for anything. No constitution would stand that was as full of contradictions and wrong things as we have in the book. No such textbook would stay overly long in a school's curriculum. The only text I encounter with such problematic text is the instruction booklet found in Ikea furniture. I wouldn't exactly characterize those as words of life.

Nothing in the book is responsible for me not killing people or coveting their ox or slave. I can honestly say that I have never coveted an ox. And the book had nothing to do with it. I have helped people. But that also had nothing to do with the convoluted theology found in a dusty, old book. I helped because I wanted to, not because I was chasing a reward. If I can manage all that without a cosmic overlord, I see no reason to promote the error-riddled book inspired by that overlord.

What follows in this fun little series are a few of my favorite contradictions and inaccuracies in the book. The game is to rank them from least worst to absolute worst. Plus, there will be a surprise twist that I will only reveal in the finale.

See You In The Comments.

1. God doesn't change his mind

This is one of the most obvious and impossible contradictions to resolve. On the one hand, god is not human that he should change his mind. On the other hand, god's changes of mind are epic. We could deal with many specific examples. But I will go for this one:

The Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, how stiff-necked they are.  Now let me alone so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, and of you I will make a great nation.”

*But Moses implored the Lord his God and said, “O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?  Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, how you swore to them by your own self, saying to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’ ”  And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people. Ex. 32:9-*14

We see a lot of things happening here: God is big mad and is ready to break his promise to Abraham. Think about that. God has already changed his mind about the promise he made to Abraham. Moses has to remind god that he made a promise that people know about.

He orders Moses to leave him alone so his rage can build. Had Moses done so, the outcome would be that god would have destroyed the Jews and made a new kingdom from Moses. That was his new plan. He had already decided to do that. But Moses talks him out of it.

Moses practically commands god not to do it and appeals to god's pride. The only thing that changed god's mind is that other nations might mock him for his behavior. That's extraordinary! So the reading culminates with,

..the Lord changed his mind...

The whole time, god was behaving like a man, and like a son of man. In other words, he was acting like a human. That is important because it is the specific thing he would not and could not do:

God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind.

Has he promised, and will he not do it Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? Num. 23::19

Well, that's awkward.

2. God cannot lie

It is not just that god can't lie, he hates lies and the lying liars who tell them. That is why this passage is so hard to understand:

And the Lord said, “Who will entice Ahab, so that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” Then one said one thing, and another said another, until a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, “I will entice him.” “How?” the Lord asked him. He replied, “I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” Then the Lord[c] said, “You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do it.” So you see, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has decreed disaster for you.’ 1 Kings 22:20-23

The Christian is barred from using the old, God didn't do it, he just allowed someone to do it, lie. That is because of the text. In this story, god is given credit for putting the lie in the mouth of the prophets:

So you see, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets...

There is also that old chestnut where it is stated in the New Testament that to some, god sends a strong delusion so that they believe a lie. God loves a lying spirit when it is in his employ. We also can't forget that one with Rahab the harlet. The only two things we know about her is that she was an unrepentant prostitute and that she told an effective lie for god's troops. Knowing that she was going to lie on their behalf, she was rewarded. For that lie, she made it into the Hebrews faith hall of fame.

God really does love a lying spirit when it lies for him. So the following passage is quite the mystery:

There are six things that the Lord hates,
    seven that are an abomination to him:  haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
    and hands that shed innocent blood,  a heart that devises wicked plans,
    feet that hurry to run to evil,  a lying witness who testifies falsely,
    and one who sows discord in a family. Proverbs 6:16-19

Notice that lying makes the list twice. God really hates lies, and the lying liars who tell them except when they are doing it for him. Finally, there's this:

But as for the cowardly, the faithless the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’ Rev. 21:8

I wonder if god and Rahab will have their part in that burning lake as well. Hmmm...

3 Levitical Priesthood

Many will find this one a little stodgy since it involves some of that Old Testament law and ceremony of a religion that literally no one practices any more. That said, this is one of the most clear and damning of all biblical contradictions and must be given its due. Pay close attention to this passage:

For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to make grain offerings, and to make sacrifices for all time. Jer. 33:17,18

Let's just ignore the part about David. Though that one works as well. For the Christian, the one about the priesthood is much worse. Notice that it is not just about the fact that it is a Levitical priest, it includes the specificity of what the priest will be doing. In Jewish promise fulfillment, the Levite will be offering sacrifices. It is not generic. It includes grain offerings. That cannot simply be spiritualized and removed.

Notice how it ends. These sacrifices are to be made by the Levitical priest for all time, not for a temporary and limited time. Remember that this was the endgame scenario for them. This was not to be replaced by something newer and better. There was nothing better. In the endgame, there could be nothing newer. It could no more be substituted for something else than could be the ruler from the line of David. Nothing could more obvious. Wait, what...?

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood—for the people received the law under this priesthood—what further need would there have been to speak of another priest arising according to the order of Melchizedek rather than one according to the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. Now the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. It is even more obvious when another priest arises, resembling Melchizedek, one who has become a priest, not through a legal requirement concerning physical descent but through the power of an indestructible life. For it is attested of him,

“You are a priest forever,
    according to the order of Melchizedek.”

There is, on the one hand, the abrogation of an earlier commandment because it was weak and ineffectual (for the law made nothing perfect); there is, on the other hand, the introduction of a better hope through which we approach God. Heb. 7:11-19

This contradiction is so obvious, even the writer has to acknowledge it. Look closer:

For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in coconnectionith that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

In the story, no Jew would have accepted the possibility of any other priesthood because of the word from the lord. It was not unclear in the least. It was direct and unmistakable. Aaron: called Levi, was the forever father of the priests. His priestly line was established long before there was a David.

Here's the thing, they knew about Melchisedeck. But he wasn't the prototype for the priesthood. It was a very human, tangible, and non-mysterious thing. It was the line of Aaron. Anything other than that would have been to defy god to his face. That's why the Hebrews writer had to address it.

It is even more obvious when another priest arises, resembling Melchizedek...

Hang on! Since when was Jesus a priest? He was no more a priest than I am. For Jesus to be the, another priest arises, fellow, he would first have to be a priest. He was never a priest by any definition. No Jew recognized him as a priest. He never claimed to be a priest. The disciples didn't hail him as a priest. This passage that almost didn't make it into the canon is the first reference to Jesus being a priest. It is just what we might call a make-em-up.

There is, on the one hand, the abrogation of an earlier commandment because it was weak and ineffectual...

Had Judaism been a thing at that time and had the writer of this anonymous work been known, he would have been put to death for blasphemy. He is admitting that this new cult is a total abrogation of the law. He is saying that the foundation of the Jewish law was weak and ineffectual. If this writer had once been a Jew, he wasn't by the time he wrote this. I was once a Christian. But no one would mistake my writings today for Christian writings.

Were I still a Christian, my writings would have me labeled a heretic. I might say something like the following: Sure, I broke away from the teachings of Jesus. But that's because his teachings were bullshit! That is almost an exact translation of what the Hebrews writer said about the law and the priesthood. He twists the knife even further to make it very clear:

...one who has become a priest, not through a legal requirement concerning physical descent but through the power of an indestructible life.

He literally says that this new priesthood he is pushing is not according to the law. Translation: Screw the law! He further admits that it is not based on the requirement of bloodline. Translation: Screw Levi! He bases his new cult priesthood on the power of an indestructible life.

That sounds good until you realize that god didn't base the priesthood on an indestructible life. He could have, but didn't. God chose an indestructible line of destructible lives. This writer knew that was a failure and has manufactured an alternative that goes directly against what god set up as a forever solution. Translation: Screw that god!

4. The two deaths of Judas

All attempts to escape this one make the believer seem dishonest in a way that can't be easily shrugged off. From their first ill-conceived moment of trying to defend this one, they transform into a used-car salesperson who should never again be trusted. This one has one of the highest credibility-loss rankings of any other. So, how did Judas the betrayer die?

When Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. He said, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money.” After conferring together, they used them to buy the potter’s field as a place to bury foreigners. For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

There is another bit to this that I will come to later. For now, this is probably the story most people would know. The problem is it is completely contradicted by Luke's version.

Brothers and sisters, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas, who became a guide for those who arrested Jesus, for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

As stated before, these two stories are irreconcilable. It is likely an etiology for an infamous field called the Field of Blood. I have no idea if that field actually existed. It is just that it appears twice in the gospels from two people who gave opposing etiologies for how it came to be. Perhaps some people were convinced that there was chicanery associated with the burial ground. A few Christians tie that to the fictional Judas and the potential for fanciful stories abounds. We have two in the bible and there could be many others that are lost forever.

That is speculation. What we know is that the ones in the bible are impossible to reconcile, yet are told as though completely factual. There are many details we could tap for entertainment value. But we can see the issue if we just follow the money.

In Matthew, Judas was repentant and gave the money back to the temple leaders. There was no money with which Judas could buy a field because he gave it back. Afterward, he hanged himself. The temple leaders bought a field to bury outsiders with the money. Luke nukes that story by keeping the money in the hands of an unrepentant Judas. He does not give the money back and buys a field with it himself. Via some unexplained, unfortunate event, he falls headfirst and bursts open at the middle. In other words, he keeps the money and spends it.

We have no reason to believe that either story is true. But reason precludes the acceptance of both being true. That possibility is ruled out by simple logic. Do Christians care about this? I have yet to meet one that didn't happily whistle past the grave of the outsider and keep on trucking. After reading these facts, they still insist that the bible has no contradictions. The two deaths of Judas be damned.

5. There are none righteous

This one is short and sweet:

• Noah
• Abraham
• Job
• Joseph, stepfather of Jesus
• John the Baptist
• Simeon
• Cornelius
• And more..

All of these people were called righteous in the book. So it is hard to understand what was meant by the following:

“None is righteous, no, not one;      no one understands;
    no one seeks for God.  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
    no one does good,
    not even one.” Romans 3

You can find this same kind of doggerel in Psalms. There are many unconvincing ways to read and explain it away. But none of them feel like honest attempts to understand the text. They all sound more like attempts to save the text from the C word.

6. Jealous and boastful

The rest of these will be similar. But they are so important to the understanding of the person of god they deserve separate treatments. The first of these attributes deals with love and jealousy. Fun fact: the first name god ever gave to himself was Jealous. Here it is

Tear down their altars, break thheir pillars, and cut down their sacred poles, for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Ex. 34:13-14

A fuller reading of the passage shows the jealousy of this god in no uncertain terms. His is a rather violent and all-inclusive jealousy. It means exactly what you think it means. God is also love, the very definition of love, the very incarnation of love, but only if you disregard the following:

Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous; love does not brag, it is not arrogant. 1 Cor. 13-4

Straightforwardly, the majority translation say love does not envy rather than love is not jealous. It isn't even close. I'm not a translator. But this feels like the kind of thing where more than one translation was possible and they went with the one that was least embarrassing.

That said, they all say that love does not boast. I would have to copy a significant portion of the bible to reproduce all of the boastings of this god. So you can get him for speeding or get him for driving drunk. Either way, you got him. He cannot be love based on Paul's definition of love.

7. A dying immortal

God is a married bachelor and believers are just fine with that. It is because Christians have come up with these omni-characteristics that are so ingrained into their doctrine that they cannot let go of any of them, even when they are obviously in conflict.

Thing is, all of his traits are in conflict with his other traits or actions. The need to make him everything ends up making him nothing at all. Some say he's timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. That is the very definition of nothing at all. And that is exactly what this god has become. He was probably more real back when he wasn't trying to be everything, everywhere, all at once.

One of the things he is supposed to be is immortal. That is the state of not being able to die. He cannot die of a natural disaster or something more manufactured. The only thing that can kill him is for people to stop believing in him, not that he would ever admit it.

Unfortunately, the immortal one died, at least for a little while. But don't worry. He came back to life. But resurrection is a weird concept for a being that can't die in the first place. I'm going to need an aspirin.

If god can't die and Jesus could and did die, then Jesus wasn't god. Something about all humans are mortal. Socrates was a human. Socrates was mortal. I don't know. I'm not a philosopher. Let's see if it works for gods. All gods are immortal. Jesus was mortal. Jesus was not a god. Oh well, I told you I wasn't a philosopher.

Perhaps I could be a mathematician. God is not a human and a human is not a god. Seems right so far. Jesus was 100% god. I can live with that mathematically. Jesus was 100% human. That must be that new math. I'm out.

8. Unless you are like this child...

Jesus said to let the little children come to him. But perhaps we should run a quick background check before we hand over street full of children to his tender love in care. Running a background check is more than god does for his handpicked leaders that he puts in charge of little children, I think I know why. Jesus/god has a past. And there is no closet big enough to hide all those tiny bodies

Thus says the Lord of hosts: I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek and utterly destry all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” 1 Sam. 15:2-3

Fun fact: This revenge attack is for something the Amalekites did 400 years prior. Not a single person was alive at the time who took part in that action. That would be like me doing a revenge attack on southern white people for what their ancestors did to my ancestors. Heck! I could make a good case for retaliating against white people for the crimes of their forefathers less than a hundred years ago. No Christian would accept that as a reason to go kill their descendants today.

Christians argue that we can't judge a god on his morality thousands of years ago. It's not like morality is objective or anything like that. Am I right? We all know that morality is based on time and culture and not on timeless standards. So as long as the people thought it was okay back then, then it was right for god to act the same way back then. After all, he doesn't make the rules. Am I right?

Anyway, that isn't even the interesting part. What makes this notable is the specific orders to kill child and infant. By child, they meant exactly what you mean by the word. By infant, they meant exactly what you mean by the word. If I say, She was just an infant you would know exactly what I meant. But when the bible uses the words child and infant, Christians are clueless.

You have to imagine the scene. The soldiers have killed all the adults. Now, they have to make another pass and find all the children and infants and slaughtered them too. Otherwise, god might be displeased. You think you are done. But just before you head back home to get a much-needed bath, you see a 6 year old girl peeking her head out to see if the coast is clear. Too late. You saw her. Now, you have to go back and kill her with that sword that is already too heavy and disgusting with all that dried baby blood it drank. Oh well... Thus sayeth the lord. Am I right?

These are the same kind of children we find in the gospels when Jesus decided to use some children as props for his big photo-op:

Then children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples spoke sternly to those who brought them, but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not stop them, for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.” And he laid his hands on them and went on his way. Matt. 19:13-15

If a famous child killer became a Christian guru after doing his time, how would you feel when he looks directly at you and says to let the little children come to him? Here's something else he might say:.

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a child, whom he put among them,  and said, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. Matt.18:1-5

Were not all those slaughtered children in 1 Sam. Not the same as the ones Jesus was praising? What was the actual difference? As near as I can tell, the only difference was the mood Jesus/god was in at the time.

9. God knows everything

You would be surprised to realize how difficult it can be to describe what it means to know everything. For what it's worth, I no longer know what it means. That is because I spend time talking to Christians. It used to be that knowing everything was knowing everything. But atheists came along and started citing scripture. At that point, Christians became philosophers.

Now, god can only know what is logically possible to know. I have no idea what that even means. I don't think it is logically possible to know the number of hairs on a person's head. But god supposedly knows. Or is that just poetic exaggeration? Again, I have no idea. It is like when Jesus said his followers could move mountains. Did he really mean that literally? I don't know.

Christians are okay with the idea that he knows the future, including all my choices, and the choices of everyone else. He knows the consequences of these choices as they trickle down for the next trillion years. I don't think that is logically possible given other things Christians believe about free choice and the nature of time.

Never mind all that. It is clear that to the Christian, it is logically possible to know the day and the hour that the end would come. Jesus said that god knew it, and only god knew it. At that moment, Jesus was god. But Jesus didn't know. He was not god at that moment if there was something he couldn't know.

For him to have been god at that moment, the best one could say is that he was playing dumb. He gave himself a temporary lobotomy but still was god without all his attributes. A cannot equal not A. He is either god with all his attributes or a man who was not god. Take your pick. Both is not an option.

Fine. Let's leave Jesus out of it. It is logically possible for god to know what was going on in Babel. But Moses had no idea. This is the fever dream that oozed from his quill:

The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built. And the Lord said, “Look, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” Gen. 11:5-7

Why did the Lord come down? Down from where? Didn't he see the city and the tower from where he was? He thought that confounding the languages would keep people from accomplishing great things. But that little patch didn't last as people are adept at learning other languages. It was so even then. But I guess he didn't know that. People would be so filled with ingenuity that they learned to build chariots with iron wheels? No one could see that coming. I guess that wouldn't be logically possible.

Okay, one more: There was the thing with god regretting that he ever made humans. Pretending that he knew he would regret it, let's see how that might have looked: God is laying out the plans for the humans' reproductive organs and at the same time, he is also making the angels who would be disobedient. I mean the ones after the rebellion. These are the nephilim

While he was designing them, he decided to give them reproductive organs. He further decided to make them reproductively compatible with humans. While he was drawing all of this up, he muttered to himself that he was already regretting the decision to do all of that. He saw how all the people of Earth ( besides the house of Noah) would have to be destroyed because of that decision and really regretted what he was in the process of doing.

That is the silliness in which one must engage to entertain the idea that god knew everything. He knew it but pretended not to know it so that he could pretend to regret it later. I guess that's what it means to know everything.

10. Just have faith

Faith is one of my favorite whipping boys because there is so much weirdness associated with it. In this case, I will try to stay tightly focused on one impossible aspect of it that I believe can be properly labeled a clear and present contradiction with absolutely no resolution, not even a bad one. Here you go:

The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16

There are many texts on the importance of faith. But this one is short and clear. We can hand-wave away baptism for our purposes, here. This is about belief. The one who believes will be saved. The one who does not believe will be condemned. Well, one little rabbit trail:

Later he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were sitting at the table, and he upbraided them for their lack of faith and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. 14

I often mention this without citing it just to bait descent. (I'm not a nice man.) But no one takes me up on it. What I say is that even the disciples didn't believe. Here's the reveal. They didn't believe on the basis of testimony any more than I do. Heck, they didn't really believe after they saw him because they were afraid, not relieved. They didn't know what they were seeing. Anyway, back to the story...

Here, belief is presented as though it were a choice and not an involuntary state of being convinced. It is like saying that whoever is warm in sub-zero temperature without external means will be saved. I would counter that being warned in freezing temperatures without external means of getting warm is not a choice. It is a biological constraint.

I quite literally do not have the ability to be warm in freezing temperatures. Not even mind over matter can get it done for me. Perhaps a skilled mentalist could get it done. But almost no one else could pull it off.

Belief is the state of being convinced. That is the only definition I am willing to work with. Belief is not wanting to believe or trying to believe or faking it till you're making it. You can only be said to believe something if you are truly convinced it is the best correspondence to reality. Ordering someone to believe is like ordering someone to genuinely and deeply love. That is not how either of them works. Here's the contradiction:

Those who are unspiritual[d] do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny. 1 Cor. 2:14-15

This is one of the worst passages in the whole book because most Christians seem to take it seriously. They insist on knowing things that are spiritual and mysterious. They have a special knowledge that does not come from human wisdom. That means they can pretty much ignore any experts or even natural observations because their special, spiritual knowledge trumps everything. And they run the government.

This passage goes further. It makes it clear that unbelievers are unable to understand. It is not simply that they don't understand. That suggests that it is something that can be overcome with a bit of applied willpower.

It goes on to say that only spiritual people can understand spiritual things. So an unspiritual person can't just believe. But wait. There's more: to an unspiritual person, the things of the spirit are foolishness. That means the Christian is literally telling us we have to genuinely believe foolishness, but also that we can't understand it anyway because we are not spiritual.

If it is true that we have to believe and also that we can't believe because we can't understand it, that is an irreconcilable contradiction. That makes faith a gift from god, not an effort from us. Since we are fools for not believing and our minds are always on wickedness, the god would have to break through all that and fix us so that we can believe.

If one doesn't believe, it has to mean that god didn't give that person the gift of belief. It cannot be their fault, and thus, cannot be fair to condemn a person for something that only god could have done for them. The situation is worse because if we are wicked people who necessarily see it all as foolishness, then it makes no sense to tell that person that they have to be seeking god and open to his calling. Why would they ever do that for something they can never understand and that they find foolish? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Conclusion: A poison well of contradictions

At the end of the day, we must consider the source. We also must discern a logical fallacy and how it differs from reasonable observation. I am not making a poisoning of the well fallacy. I am simply observing an already poisoned well and declining an offer to drink from it.

There is no need to talk about all the good things about the well. See, it is a sturdy well. It doesn't leak. There is water in it. There's a baby in it. It is a mistake to blow up the baby with the well.*

That silly. The well is tainted beyond the ability to clean. The water is deadly. And the baby found face-down in the water is long dead. Why are we trying to save any part of that poison well?. Talking about nice things Jesus said is like mining the best part of Hitler's work for good advice. No one would suggest a new law based on some teachings in that work, even if they were good. That well is poisoned. Stay away from it.

The religion and its book are riddled with poisonous contradictions. I cut it off at 10 but could have gone on that way for a long time. But I think you get the point.

How many discrepancies constitute a poison well? If the book is meant to be perfect and from a perfect god, just one should do. But even if we take a more liberal approach, there has to be some number that would make the book no longer worth the read.

At the moment, I live in the south. When you fix a plate of food in the summer, there will at least be one roach picking at your meatloaf. Personally, I have a three-roach limit. More than two and you are just fighting for dominance. They are eventually going to get buried under your mashed potatoes. How many roaches need to crawl out of your mashed potatoes before you just give up and order pizza?

We've got way more than three roaches in the bread of life. Time to just give it up for a bad job and enjoy a pizza.

See you in the comments...

David Johnson

4S: Microbiologist Dr. Greg Newkirk destroys YEC and other nonsense with science

Special thanks to Matt for stepping in and doing the heavy lifting.

Apologetics series…

4S:The worst thing that god ever did (Series)

This will be a short series of shorts.

4S: Old Testament (multiple parts)