Skip to main content

Religious Conversation With An Old Friend - Part 2

Keeping with the tradition of posting a religion-related comic before the serious conversation:




Okay, so here we go with letter* #2:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Stephan! Good to hear from you, man!


I'm glad you responded to that post, actually. I post those in hopes that my Christian friends will respond. You're one of my Christian friends that can talk about these things without being unreasonable and/or put off.


First you say, 


Such a list saddens me, because many of those items can be easily explained through actually studying the context (textually & culturally), as well as distinguishing "paradox" from "contradiction".


I know exactly what you mean. I'm familiar with many of these explanations. For me, the important thing isn't that there are alleged contradictions in the Bible per se or that there are alleged workarounds; the important point for me is this: many Christians tend to shrug off other Holy books because they have historical, theological, or self-referential contradictions, just like the Christian or Jewish Holy texts. Muslims, for example, have ways to explain their alleged contradictions; these are strikingly similar to the Christian explanations. Either it is an unknowable paradox of theology or a misunderstood cultural convention.


Every major religion has critics that point out errors in some holy text or another. Each also claims to have infallible texts. For me, the choices are as follows:


1) One of these religions really does have an infallible text. The others have errors.


2) All of these religions have infallible texts. They are all true. The contradictions between religions, like the contradictions within their texts, are a paradox that colors God's mysterious character.


3) All of these texts have errors. None of them are infallible. The followers of these religions have concocted sometimes elaborate explanations.


To me, explanation #3 is the most likely.


I don't necessarily have a problem with theological mysterious, such as free will/sovereignty. I love those kinds of mysteries. It's the banal stuff that gets to me. What would I expect if a bunch of people from the same cultural tribe over a long period of time recorded the myths and superstitions of their day? I would expect something like the Torah, the New Testament, or the Koran.


What do you think?


And how have you been, Stephan? What have you been up to lately?


- Deric


*These are facebook messages, not letters. I just thought "letter" would make it sound classier. Or maybe I just thought that labeling it as "a facebook message" cheapened it. Probably the latter.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Deric, thanks for posting this conversation.

A question of clarification: are you proposing that Christians not "shrug off" other holy books (i.e., that they accept them), or are you proposing that Christians (and other people) shrug off the idea of "holy books" altogether?
Unknown said…
I am proposing that Christians not "shrug off" the claims of other holy books. This doesn't necessarily mean acceptance, however.

I'm challenging Christians to take the other claims as seriously as they take the claims of the Bible.

As it is now, I think Christians exhibit a double-standard. They dismiss other holy books on grounds that they have historical inaccuracies, scientific inaccuracies, contradictions within the text, or questionable moral lessons.

If they were as critical of the Bible as they are of every other allegedly infallible text, I would be satisfied.

Instead, Christian apologists come up with amusing, elaborate ways to get around errors in the Bible. If all else fails, they claim that they just know that the Bible is true, as, of course, every Muslim ultimately just knows that the Koran is true, etc etc etc.
Lauren said…
I know this isn't the conclusion you ended up on, but for the sake of elimination, as well as because we addressed it in a class the other day, I'd like to address your second option.
"2) All of these religions have infallible texts. They are all true. The contradictions between religions, like the contradictions within their texts, are a paradox that colors God's mysterious character."

There's a huge difference between the minor discrepancies in any given religious text than the contradictions in thought that the texts represent. Issues about predestination or God's will, for instance, are hardly as make-or-break as issues about God's existence or the teachings of Jesus. (ie: God cannot both exist and not exist, or be millions of gods and the only God)

Therefore, as the issue stands for me, the options are 1) One text is true, and 2) none of them are true.

Also, I DO think that many Christians are far too eager to come up with pat excuses for the Bible. If one believes something is infallible, that should make one all the more eager to scrutinize and critique it.
Unknown said…
Thanks for the comment, Lauren. I agree with you. I do not buy the postmodern mumbo jumbo that might, for instance, revel in a paradox like, "There is one god and there are many gods" or "All religions are true and none of them are true."

When logic is abandoned, there is no longer a point in trying to have a conversation, in my opinion. Unless the point is to make me laugh.
Anonymous said…
So we all agree that Lauren's two options are the only logically legitimate ones?
Unknown said…
I won't speak for anybody else, Jeremy, but I am not prepared to accept 2 mutually-exclusive texts as both being infallible any more readily than than a text with inner contradictions as being infallible. This doesn't necessarily mean that Lauren's two options are the only two logically consistent ones; there could be two holy texts that aren't mutually exclusive and are both infallible, for example.
Anonymous said…
This, of course, is what Christians believe of the Bible. It is not one "text" by one author (as is the Koran, for example), but a collection of sixty-six texts by over forty different authors written over a span of 1500 years.

Popular posts from this blog

Jesus, Lover of my Soul

An old friend and spiritual mentor of mine left a comment on my last "Religious Conversation" Post . It provoked so much thought that I wanted to share it with everybody, because I know quite a few of my religious friends are reading this, and I know quite a few of you who would make a similar statement. Here it is: There is an element in this conversation that is being overlooked (at least, I presume). There is an aesthetic beauty and, more, an affection, which Steven appears to have for God. This is not illogical; in fact, all human beings exhibit it for something. It may be subjective, and it is not conclusive, but it is completely logical. And I can't imagine an argument that would refute it. It is something like a man saying, "I love my wife. I appreciate her many virtues and charms; I believe her to be the woman most worthy of my affection and lifelong commitment." If I say this and someone were to say to me, "But EVERY man says that of his bride!

After Summer Sosltice

my very first priority for the day was to sleep in as late as possible. when my foul roommate woke me up I had to shift to priority number two: be as comfortable as possible - normal routine be damned. Upon shuffling my way into the kitchen, I discovered a moth, wet-plastered to a dirty pan. "I feel your pain, buddy." Sitting on the couch next to a glass of water, I wish I could devise a way to get the water in me without having to move my arms or head. My vacant glazed gaze gathers itself toward a brochure on the coffee table:Tips 4 Teens - Alcohol Abuse I laugh (only mentally) and for a moment, the shaking stops. Jesus, it's good to be alive.

How Many Will Enter Heaven?

Check out this quote I found online: "[C]onsider this fact: fewer than 20% of people actually think they are going to hell. And yet, in answering that question, Jesus says in Matthew 7 that FEW pass through the gate that leads to eternal life. 80% doesn't sound like few to me... do some of us have the wrong idea?" There are a number of problems with this quote. First of all, you it is assuming that "few" refers to the current ratio of professing Christians to non-Christians. What's to say that Jesus isn't referring to the entire population of all the earth over all time? In that case, it's entirely plausible that 80% of people now are really Christians, as long as there are still few total Christians when all is said and done. Maybe it applies only to the people in the crowd listening to Jesus. Or, it could refer to something else entirely (as I believe). Jesus was talking to a specific people living in a specific time. We cannot decontextualize his