Category Archives: Uncategorized

What Is a “Real Man,” According to the Bible?

Posted on by

What makes a “real man”? We’ve all seen light-hearted rules like real men don’t cry, real men don’t eat quiche, real men don’t let other men eat quiche, and so on. James Dobson’s Family Talk site has a page that claims to have God’s rules for how to be a true man of God. The author summarizes the goal this way: “My wife and kids need a real man, not some wimpy guy that rides the ever-changing cultural tides of our times.”

Here’s that list, built on the rock of the Bible.

God’s Real Man List

  1. Real men don’t leave their wives. See Ephesians 5:25-32, Mark 10:9, Job 31:1
  2. Real men honor their wives as co-heirs. See 1 Peter 3:7
  3. Real men teach their children God’s ways (both in word and in action). See Deuteronomy 6:6-7, Ephesians 6:4, Psalm 78:5-7
  4. Real men build into the lives of other men. See Proverbs 27:17
  5. Real men don’t use their words to demean others. See Ephesians 4:29
  6. Real men don’t let their anger get away from them. See James 1:19-20
  7. Real men lead best when they love most. See Ephesians 5:1-2; John 13:34-35
  8. Real men are sacrificial for the sake of their Lord, family, and others. See John 15:13
  9. Real men are servants. See Mark 10:45
  10. Real men can show their emotions (this includes crying). See John 11:35, Matthew 21:12, Matthew 9:36

 

But why this list? Don’t forget that “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). You really can’t go wrong when pulling Iron Age biblical examples into the 21st century, amirite, Dr. Dobson?

So, with that wind of certitude filling our sails, let’s look further in the Bible to see what else it says and make a new list, 10 More Traits of Real Men.

1. Real men don’t get married

The list above has at least two rules about men’s relationship with their wives, but Paul had no use for marriage:

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry (1 Corinthians 7:8–9).

You can rationalize this one away by saying that Paul wrongly thought that the End was coming soon, but what’s left of your faith when you must say that the books of the New Testament are seriously wrong?

2. Real men listen to God over common-sense morality

God made some crazy demands in the Bible. Christians, what would it take for God to convince you to accept a modern equivalent of these demands?

  • Abraham accepted God’s demand that he sacrifice his son Isaac (more).
  • After discovering the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf, Moses commanded the Levites to punish fellow Israelites: “Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor,” and 3000 were killed (Exodus 32:26–29).
  • God demanded human sacrifice: “The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether human or animal” (Exodus 13:2). More.
  • God demanded that Babylon be punished, with the Israelites as executioners: “Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished” (Isaiah 13:15–16).
  • God demanded genocide. He said that within the tribes that must be destroyed, “you shall not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:16–18) and that, for the Amalekites, Israel should “put to death men and women, children and infants” (1 Samuel 15:2–3). More here, here, and here.

I realize that we’re made in God’s image and that our sense of morality should line up with God’s, but forget that. A real man does what God says, regardless of how it immoral it seems.

3. Real men know that daughters can be sacrificed

In his younger days, God wasn’t omniscient, so he had to send scouts to Sodom to verify the rumors he’d heard. Lot protected these angels from the angry mob eager to teach these strangers who’s boss by raping them. Lot is portrayed as a godly man, though he doesn’t look very godly after he offered his two virgin daughters to the mob as a rape substitute. More.

4. Real men throw the first stone if their friend or relative strays

Suppose a friend suggests that you worship another God. Now imagine that it’s your best friend, or that it’s a family member, maybe a child or your wife. How should you respond?

Forget that freedom of religion is protected by the U.S. Constitution; things work differently in the Bible’s little world.

Do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God (Deuteronomy 13:6–11; see also Deut. 32:41–2, Exodus 22:20).

Concluded in part 2.

There have been nearly 3000 gods so far
but only yours actually exists.
The others are silly made up nonsense.
But not yours. Yours is real.
— Ricky Gervais

.

Image from Victor B., CC license
.

20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted (Part 2)

Posted on by

We’re looking at popular arguments against same-sex marriage (and a few that are just anti-gay). Conservative radio host Frank Turek provides most of the material. (Part 1 here.)

5. Think of the babies!

Frank has an odd but popular view of what marriage is.

The real reason governments have an interest in promoting natural marriage [is] because only natural marriage perpetuates and stabilizes society. Strong marriage laws encourage men and women to procreate and then stay together to mother and father their children.

First off, Frank seems confused about cause and effect. Children are important to society, but give credit where it’s due. It’s sex that makes babies, not marriage. Two people might barely know each other but still start the baby-making process in five minutes, which has very little to do with what we think of as marriage.

Second, Jesus is portrayed in the Bible as the metaphorical husband married to the church. The ideas of joy, love, and protection are used when discussing this marriage, never making babies. Frank needs to explain why his definition is at odds with that in the Bible.

Third, it’s true that government makes laws that protect and encourage stable families. However, there’s a lot more to marriage than just children. For example, society makes laws about divorce, spousal abuse, care of elderly, taxes, control of assets when a spouse is imprisoned or incapacitated, the definition of common law marriage, inheritance, and more that affect marriages with or without children.

Fourth, Frank now has a fun slogan: “it’s not bigotry—it’s biology!” Don’t blame him; we’re bound by the realities of nature. But if it’s all about the biology, wouldn’t you expect to see this biology made plain in marriage vows or in the state’s marriage certificate? The silence screams volumes.

Let’s be consistent about the children. If marriage is all about making and raising children, then don’t offer marriage to straight couples who don’t or won’t or can’t have children. Give a willing couple five years, say, and if they don’t produce, yank the marriage license. Or consider another example: my wife and I won’t be making any more children, so do we deserve to still be married?

If you’re okay with childless straight couples, then be consistent and support gay couples with no interest in children. And if your focus is on the children, support the 40,000 children in California living with same-sex parents, prohibited until recently from getting married.

Frank again:

Children raised in biological two-parent homes tend to do better and cause society much less trouble than children raised in other situations

We probably describe the perfect household in a similar way, but just because we prefer a home with loving parents, financial security, a safe neighborhood, excellent schools, and good job opportunities doesn’t mean that that exists for every child. But if children’s environment is truly a concern, why not focus on what we all agree degrades that environment—urban decay, poverty, drugs, domestic violence, gangs, and so on? Why does Frank focus solely on the sex of the parents? I’m beginning to suspect that this concern for children is just a smokescreen.

And let’s not be too quick to rank mom-and-dad households over households with same-sex parents. One study came to the opposite conclusion. That doesn’t resolve the issue, but Frank’s assumption that same-sex households are significantly worse is at least debatable. Anyway, that’s irrelevant—if a woman got divorced, has custody of her child, and is now a lesbian (to take one example), the argument “But your family would be better with a man” is irrelevant.

And I’m surprised at Frank’s preference for biological parents. Doesn’t that undercut adoption as the conservative solution to unwanted pregnancies?

6. Homosexuality is harmful!

Don’t blame Frank for the facts of nature, he says. He reminds us that babies only come from male/female sex (which is clumsy sleight of hand to make us think that the topic is sex rather than marriage).

And then this:

I didn’t make up the fact that we all have desires we ought not act on, regardless if we are born with those desires.

He expands on this idea:

If you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean God wants you to be an alcoholic? If someone has a genetic attraction to children, does that mean God wants you to be a pedophile? . . .

For the sake of civilization, we all need to restrain our destructive behaviors.

Sure, we have desires we shouldn’t act on—harmful ones. The problem for Frank’s argument is that he does nothing to argue that homosexual desires are harmful.

Continued in part 3.

It’s all about the children.
— what no marriage vow says

.
(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 1/7/15.)

Image credit: Joost Assink, CC
.

Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions (4 of 4)

Posted on by

We’ll conclude our look at Bible contradictions. Here are the final five (part 1 is here).

16. There are two incompatible Ten Commandments

You know the story: Moses got the Ten Commandments from God on Mt. Sinai in Exodus 20. The list of commandments had the familiar rules—no blaspheming, no murder, no lying, no stealing, and so on. Moses returns, only to find that the Israelites, impatient and anxious during his long absence, had made and were worshipping a golden calf, a familiar object of worship from Egypt.

Moses smashed the tablets in his rage, 3000 Israelites were killed in the opening round of punishment, and Moses eventually went back up for a duplicate set (Exodus 34), which was put in the Ark of the Covenant.

Except that it wasn’t a duplicate set. It’s a list that very few Christians are familiar with. For example, number 5 is “The first offspring from every womb belongs to me.” Number 7: Celebrate the Feast of Weeks. Number 10: “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.” This set is referred to as the “Ten Commandments” in Exodus, not the other set.

We can debate which set fundamentalists should try to illegally place on government property, but despite God’s assurance, these are two very different sets of rules. (More here and here.)

17. There are two creation stories in Genesis

There are also two creation stories at the beginning of Genesis. First is the six-day creation story that enumerates the things God created day by day, after which God rested. Next is an older creation story, the one about the Garden of Eden.

Apologists try to harmonize these two, saying that the Garden of Eden story is just an in-depth look at the last day of creation, but details in the two stories disagree. The 6-day story says that humans can eat from every tree, while the Eden story says that one is forbidden. The 6-day story has plants and animals before humans, while the Eden story has the opposite. And so on (more).

18. There are even two Flood stories

You see the trend: the Old Testament often has two different, incompatible stories. Each was too precious for ancient editors to discard, so both were jammed together somehow. The two Ten Commandments stories are separated by over a dozen chapters, the two creation stories are back to back, and they’re interleaved in the Flood story.

In Flood story 1, the older story, Noah takes seven pairs of all clean animals plus one pair of all the others. Once on board with his family, it rained for forty days and forty nights, and everything outside the ark was killed. Noah sent out a dove to scout for dry land. On the second try, it returned with an olive leaf. Back on dry land, Noah sacrificed one of every clean animal to Yahweh, and Yahweh promised to never again destroy life on earth (with a flood, anyway).

In story #2, God is named, not Yahweh, but Elohim, and specifics about the design of the ark are given. With just one pair of each animal plus provisions, Noah (now 600 years old) and family go into the ark. This time, the water comes, not from rain, but from “the fountains of the great deep” and “the windows of the heavens.” Water had covered the earth for 150 days when Elohim made the water recede. This time it was a raven that helped scout for dry land, and they were back on dry land after a year in the ark. God told them to “be fruitful and multiply.”

A leading explanation of the Old Testament’s many story pairs is the Documentary Hypothesis. It answers a lot of questions and proposes four original documents that were merged to make the Pentateuch, the Bible’s first five books. Read more on the two Flood stories and the Documentary Hypothesis here.

19. Resurrection contradictions

Forty percent of the gospels focus on the last week of Jesus’s life, from the triumphant entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday to the crucifixion, resurrection, and final teachings, and they differ on many points.

A popular Christian response is to say that just because only Matthew wrote about the dead coming out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. (Yeah—the other gospel writers must not have thought that Jesus causing the dead to reanimate and walk around Jerusalem, seen by many, wasn’t worth writing about.)

Or that just because John says “Mary Magdalene went to the tomb,” that doesn’t mean that many other women weren’t also with her as Luke says (“Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them”).

Or that just because only Matthew has Jesus riding on two donkeys, that doesn’t mean the other gospels’ reference to just one disagrees. (Yeah, it pretty much does.)

Or that Paul’s reference to 500 eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus might’ve been compelling to him, but it wasn’t worth writing about in any gospel (more).

From who Peter denied Jesus, to Jesus’s last words, to who the women saw at the tomb, to whether Mary Magdalene recognized Jesus or not, to how many days Jesus stayed after his resurrection, the various accounts differ. (More here.)

20. Jesus forgets the plot

At some point the three persons of the Trinity—Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit—agreed that Jesus should live as a human on earth. Jesus was born as a divine being (except in Mark, where he becomes divine with his baptism) and lives out a life that ends with crucifixion. Just before that, he prayed with his disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane. To the few disciples with him, he said, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death” (Matthew 26:38). Then he prays, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup [he’s referring to the upcoming crucifixion] be taken from me.” He prays this three times. The story is the same in Mark, and in Luke, an angel strengthens Jesus.

Why did Jesus go off-script? He was part of the Trinity that decided this, so how could he be second-guessing the plan now?

We can look for a human comparison. It wouldn’t be surprising for an ordinary human to have second thoughts before a suicide mission, but in this story we’re talking about a god. Even if agony were a thing that he could perceive, why would an omniscient being question a plan that he knows is perfect?

The puzzle vanishes if we reinterpret the Jesus story as legend.

But wait! There’s more!

Religion is just superstition
which has been around long enough
to have become respectable.
— J. B. R. Yant

.

Image via Drew Saurus, CC license
.

8 Lessons from New Age Thinking for Christians and Atheists

Posted on by

new age thinking and Christianity

I recently summarized the story of Karla McLaren, a New Age practitioner who gradually embraced science and turned her back on poorly evidenced New Age claims.

Most Christians critique New Age thinking as harshly as any atheist and find McLaren’s analysis compelling. I encourage Christians to hang on to that skepticism as we consider the parallels between New Age and Christian thinking. Let’s first look at four lessons for Christians and then four lessons for atheists.

1. Maybe it’s all wrong.

McLaren was skeptical . . . to an extent. Her ability to reject silly beliefs within her own community convinced her that she was sufficiently skeptical and able to winnow the valid beliefs from the false ones, but this token skepticism deceived her. She rejected some New Age beliefs, which was good, but she was slow to consider that it might pretty much all be nonsense. When science conflicted with her beliefs, she stayed within comfortable New Age boundaries.

Christians also reject silly supernatural beliefs (the claims of the other guy’s religion). But just because you’ve rejected some supernatural beliefs doesn’t mean that you’re entitled to hold on to the ones you still fancy. We must always be on guard against confirmation bias, wishful thinking, and all the other human mental maladies that protect our beliefs from critique.

2. Accept that we just don’t know everything.

McLaren turned popular New Age thinking on its head when she realized that it’s not the New Age practitioners who embrace mystery. Instead, skeptics accept that science has plenty of unanswered questions that may or may not be resolved in their own time, and it’s actually the New Agers who must have an answer to everything. She said, “Critical thinkers and skeptics don’t create answers just to manage their anxiety.”

Similarly, many Christians have little patience for ambiguity. Though they rarely put it this bluntly, their arguments are sometimes, at root, nothing more than, “Science has unanswered questions; therefore, God.”

These Christians insist that they know what caused the Big Bang and how life came from nonlife—God did it. They have no scientific evidence for it, but that doesn’t matter. God still did it. The problem is that “God did it” is too powerful. It answers any question and can never be proven wrong. By being unfalsifiable, this claim is useless.

3. Personal experience? Maybe not that reliable.

McLaren “knew” that her metaphysics was true because she experienced it herself, but we have many ways by which we deceive ourselves. She realized that personal experience wasn’t so reliable after all.

Christians may also want to reevaluate how they know what’s true. Personal experience may be less reliable than what science tells us.

4. Fear of not knowing leads to unjustified confidence.

McLaren says that the “incapacity to tolerate mystery is a direct result of [New Age] culture’s disavowal of the intellect.” If reason doesn’t give an answer, New Age thinkers appeal to some vague spiritual reality as a way to understand reality.

Similar thinking underlies many Christians’ low opinion of science and skepticism, giving confidence that more satisfying truth can be found through the “spirit.”

But the lessons aren’t all for the Christians. Here are some for the skeptics.

5. Just because there are scammers doesn’t mean there aren’t honest practitioners.

McLaren argued that she honestly believed what she was selling and had no intention of scamming anyone. I can believe that.

Similarly, there are television evangelists and revivalists like Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, and Rod Parsley who may be unethical or know that their claims are bullshit, but we must remember that many preachers and evangelists honestly believe that they’re helping spread the truth.

6. They can’t hear you if your message is belligerent or culturally insensitive.

James Randi is a shrewd and incisive intellect who debunks pseudoscience. To me, he comes across as a gentle and wise elf motivated solely by a desire to help the public avoid being taken advantage of, but not everyone agrees. McLaren says that New Agers responded to his attacks on spoon bender Uri Geller in the 1970s by doubling down on their beliefs.

Reaching Christians also requires tact and patience. Remember the lesson of Daryl Davis.

7. Beware the Backfire Effect.

Yes, skeptics, you’re correct that New Age thinking is wrong, but there are right ways and wrong ways (mostly wrong ways) to convey this information.

Atheists, you’re right as well that Christianity is largely built on legend and wishful thinking. Nevertheless, the wrong approach won’t help and may simply reinforce a Christian conclusion.

(More on the backfire effect and how to minimize it here, here, here, and here.)

8. Consider what you’re asking them to do.

The skeptics are simply asking that we accept reality—a reasonable request, right? How hard is that?

Sometimes, quite hard. McLaren says about her own journey out of New Age:

In essence, I had to throw myself off a cliff. I had to leave behind my career, my income, my culture, my family, my friends, my health care practitioners, most of my business contacts, my past, and my future. I say this not to garner sympathy but to show what the leap truly entails….

Skeptical information can be threatening and unwanted.

This is similar to the path that atheists ask some Christians to take. The more central Christianity is to someone’s life, the more difficult to abandon it. It’s not surprising when they respond to challenges by mentally curling up like an armadillo. (I’ve written more on the difficult process of leaving religion here. For more on the Clergy Project, which supports hundreds of pastors who have concluded that Christian faith is unjustified, see the Rational Doubt blog.)

McLaren concludes:

I would ask you to respect our humanity, and approach us not as if you are reformers or redeemers. I would ask you to approach us as fellow humans who share your concern and interest in the welfare of others.

I’ll try. I’m sure this will be an ongoing process.

The yelling between our cultures just becomes louder
while the real communication
falls into the chasm that divides us.
— Karla McLaren

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 12/29/14.)

Image via Mary, CC license

.

Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions (3 of 4)

Posted on by

We’re in the middle of tossing Christianity’s dirty laundry onto the lawn for everyone to examine. Here are five more Bible contradictions that call into question foundational Christian claims (part 1 is here).

11. Do people deserve punishment for their ancestors’ sins?

The Bible demands intergenerational punishment so that children must be punished for their parents’ sins.

I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me (Exodus 20:5).

[God justified a calamity to the people:] It is because your ancestors forsook me (Jeremiah 16:11).

But the opposite claim is recorded in the Bible as well.

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin (Deuteronomy 24:16).

Everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge (Jeremiah 31:30).

The one who sins is the one who will die (Ezekiel 18:4).

Where does this leave Original Sin? This is the idea that we’re born fallen and deserve hell because of Adam’s sin, which infects us all. What foundation remains for Original Sin if it is undercut by the Bible itself?

12. What day was Jesus crucified on?

The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) say that the Last Supper was the Passover meal and that Jesus was crucified after the Passover meal.

On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” (Matthew 26:17)

Three verses later, Jesus is at the Passover meal, the Last Supper. But in John, the order is reversed: it’s the crucifixion and then the Passover meal.

Now it was the day of Preparation [the day of preparing lambs for the Passover meal], and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies [of Jesus and the two thieves] left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. (John 19:31)

A “historical account,” as the gospels are claimed by some to be, should get the order of important events correct, and the Passover meal and the crucifixion are both important events.

13. Who should the disciples convert?

At the end of the gospel story, Jesus has risen and is giving the disciples their final instructions.

Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).

This is the familiar Great Commission, and it’s a lot more generous than what has been called the lesser commission that appears earlier in the same gospel:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5–6)

This was not a universal message. We see it again in his encounter with the Canaanite woman:

[Jesus rejected her plea to heal her daughter, saying] “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” (Matthew 15:24–6)

You might say that a ministry with limited resources had to prioritize, but that doesn’t apply here. Don’t forget that Jesus was omnipotent.

Going back to the Old Testament, we don’t find an all-inclusive message there, either. The Israelites were God’s “Chosen People,” and God had harsh things to say about neighboring tribes.

No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of Jehovah, not even in the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:3).

God also forbids intermarriage with these foreign tribes (Deut. 7:3; Ezra 9:2, 10:10; Nehemiah 13).

Let’s revisit the fact that Matthew is contradictory when it says both “Make disciples of all nations” and “Do not go among the Gentiles [but only] to the lost sheep of Israel.” There are no early papyrus copies of Matthew 28 (the “Make disciples of all nations” chapter), and the earliest copies of this chapter are in the codices copied in the mid-300s. That’s almost three centuries of silence from original to our best copies, a lot of opportunity for the Great Commission to get “improved” by copyists. I’m not saying it was, of course; I’m simply offering one explanation for why the gospel in Matthew has Jesus change so fundamental a tenet as who he came to save.

14. Jesus should’ve returned already.

Jesus promised to return within the lifetimes of those listening to him. This Apocalyptic message (Apocalypticism claims that the end times are very close) is found in the three synoptic gospels. It takes a passage in Isaiah 13 that predicts calamity for Babylon—that the sun and moon will darken and the stars will fall—and repurposes it as a prediction of the end. It also predicts:

[All people on earth will] see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds. (Matthew 24:30–31)

The prediction ends saying that this will all happen soon.

This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened (Matthew 24:34).

Let me emphasize those two points: “these things” will happen soon (within months or years, not centuries), and “these things” are obvious and world-destroyingly calamitous. The popular Christian response that this referred to the fall of the Temple won’t fly.

Earlier in the same gospel, we find other references to the imminent coming of the Son of Man:

When you are persecuted in one place [as you spread the gospel], flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matthew 10:23)

Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:28).

It’s been a lot longer than one generation. Jesus made a mistake.

15. Jesus promises that prayers are answered

Jesus says a lot about prayer, and he makes big claims for it.

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you (Matthew 7:1).

Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours (Mark 11:24).

He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do (John 14:12).

Apologists say that Jesus isn’t like a genie, but they need to reread their Bibles. Jesus really does say, “Ask, and ye shall receive”—it’s in John 16:24. He says it without caveats. That promise has been tested uncountably many times, often by desperate people, but if Jesus answers, it’s indistinguishable from chance. (More on prayer here and here.)

Concluded in part 4.

Religion is just superstition
which has been around long enough
to have become respectable.
— J. B. R. Yant

.

Image via Andrei Lazarev, CC license
.

Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions (2 of 4)

Posted on by

What are your favorite Bible contradictions? These can be two sets of verses that are contradictory, or the clash can be the Bible vs. reality. And these aren’t just trivial contradictions where “It’s a typo—big deal” would be an answer. These seem to strike at foundational Christian claims.

Let’s continue (part 1 is here).

6. Faith saves (or do works save?)

Protestant Christianity often emphasizes that faith alone (sola fide) justifies God’s forgiveness. Many verses support this.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8–9).

We maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law (Romans 3:28).

That seems clear enough until we find the opposite claim elsewhere in the Bible. The clearest example to me is the Parable of the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25, but there’s more.

Will [God] not repay everyone according to what they have done? (Proverbs 24:12)

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? (James 2:14).

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done (Matthew 16:27).

The dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works (Revelation 20:12).

For something so important as getting into heaven and avoiding hell, the New Testament is surprisingly unclear.

Addendum: Or maybe it’s repentance that saves . . . or maybe baptism?

What if it’s repentance?

Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord (Acts 3:19).

Repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47).

Or baptism? It was so essential a ritual that Jesus did it.

Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life (Romans 6:4).

7. The different genealogies of Jesus

The Messiah had to be of the line of David (Jeremiah 33:15–17; Isaiah 9:7), so two gospels provide genealogies of Jesus to validate this requirement. The problem is that we only need to go back one generation, to Joseph’s father, to find a problem.

Jacob [was] the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah (Matthew 1:16).

Jesus . . . was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli (Luke 3:23).

There is just one unique male biological line that would terminate in Joseph, so at least one of these genealogies is wrong. And it’s hard to imagine that an ordinary Joe like Joseph would have a reliable record of his genealogy going back generations. Worse, Joseph wasn’t the biological father of Jesus, so his genealogy is irrelevant. If being in the line of David is a requirement, then having a god for a father makes you ineligible.

The most common rebuttal is to say that the Luke genealogy is for Mary, but the text makes clear that it’s for Joseph. Anyway, why would you provide the genealogy of the parent from whom descent from David wouldn’t count? We’re seeing the incompatible clash of two ideas: Jesus inherits David’s throne and Jesus was the son of God.

8. Does God prevent harm to good Christians?

In response to a church shooting, where good Christians were doubtless praying to God but still got shot, Christian apologist Greg Koukl pushed back against the idea that anyone should be surprised (I responded here). In fact, he assures us, Jesus promised persecution.

Do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. (1 Peter 4:12–13)

Koukl said, “There is . . . no rationale, no line of thinking that if God does exist that only good things happen to people, particularly people who believe in God, especially Christians.”

In fact, the Good Book says precisely that:

No harm overtakes the righteous, but the wicked have their fill of trouble (Proverbs 12:21).

If you make the Most High your dwelling—even the LORD, who is my refuge—then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent. (Psalm 91:5–10)

When Christians desperately praying for their lives in a church are gunned down, atheists are right to point out that this makes one question God’s existence.

9. When is the End?

A 2013 poll found that 41 percent of U.S. adults think that we’re now living in the end times. But ask for the precise date, and the standard response is to point to this verse:

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (Mark 13:32; see also Matthew 24:36).

Harold Camping was hilariously wrong about his prediction of the Rapture® on May 21, 2011 (here, here), and fellow Christians pointed to that verse. But Brother Camping had a comeback with this passage:

You know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.  You are all children of the light and children of the day. (1 Thessalonians 5:1–5)

Some people won’t know, the children of darkness. But the enlightened ones will know. (Or not, if Jesus was correctly quoted.)

10. Jesus finds a new home for Mary. But why?

While on the cross, Jesus was concerned about his mother and made provisions for her to be taken care of after he was gone.

When Jesus saw his mother standing there beside the disciple he loved, he said to her, “Woman, he is your son.” And he said to this disciple, “She is your mother.” And from then on this disciple took her into his home. (John 19:26–7)

That’s a nice gesture, but why was it necessary? Mary had other sons. Tradition holds that James, the leader of the church and supposed author of the epistle of James, was the brother of Jesus. And then we have this:

Isn’t [Jesus] the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? (Matthew 13:55)

Mary had lots of sons who could support her.

Continue with part 3.

If horses had gods, they’d look like horses.
— Xenophanes

.

Image via Cristian Newman, CC license
.