My usual example of a contradiction is the origin of Jesus. In Mark, Jesus is an ordinary Jew who becomes the son of God by adoption once he's been baptized by John. His birth is not attended by portents or angelic messengers and he's the only Jesus not said to be descended from David. In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is said to be the literal son of God, the product of divine insemination of a virgin, meaning these Jesuses must have God's own Y-chromosome. They're both said to be descended from David, a claim that contradicts the notion that they're literal sons of God; and anyway the two irreconcilable genealogies provided are both for Joseph. The Jesuses of Paul and of John are both influenced by gnosicism ─ each existed in heaven with God, each created the material universe (regardless of Genesis) in the role of the demiurge, and each have no description of their birth or childhood except that they're said to be descended from David, implying that each was born to an unidentified Jewish couple, presumably by spiritually entering the zygote at the time of conception.I've heard many people say that the scriptures are inaccurate and contradictory, but on a careful study of the offending passages it becomes clear that no such inaccuracy exists.
Plenty of contradiction there, and that's just for a start. We can move on to the accounts of the resurrection if that's not enough.
That's easy ─ Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh and is unrecognizable as a Jewish messiah. And the Suffering Servant in Isaiah is the nation of Israel, not a person. And in Isaiah 7:14 the young woman who's to conceive and bear a son to be called Immanuel bears that son in Isaiah 8:3. And so on.The issue is whether the narrative from Genesis to Revelation is complete and comprehensive and it's message and themes clear and consistent.
Yes. The aim of the historian is to understand the past as it was, not how anyone might wish it to have been. The aim of the apologist is precisely the opposite.This is a claim to truth at a purely literal level, aside from the spiritual impact that the words have had on millions of people, which is much harder to quantify.
I use the 'correspondence' definition of truth: truth is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds to objective reality (the 'correspondence' definition). There are always difficulties in working out what events truly occurred in history, which is why the cold eye of the historian is needed to get as close to the truth as we can.The question that many atheists and secular humanists find hard to answer is, What is the truth?
That since we find gods and supernatural beings in all cultures, they're something we've evolved to employ; and that since there's no agreement between cultures as to their identity, nature and function, they only exist as concepts or things imagined in individual brains.I am clear that all prophecy points to the truth of Jesus Christ, but if one is to ignore Christ, what is being offered as an alternative?
I'm an igtheist. That's to say, I find the concept of a real god ─ one who is not imaginary, one who has objective existence and is therefore to be found in nature ─ to be incoherent. I've yet to find a definition of God appropriate for a real being; God instead is a congeries of imaginary qualities. There is no objective test that will tell me whether my keyboard is God or not. There isn't even a concept of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead, travel in time &c, would lack.I do not, as yet, know exactly what you believe to be true, Blu, but l do know that the Psalmist has some harsh words for those that dismiss God's existence [Psalm 14]
That's fair. There is no objective purpose which humans came into existence in order to fulfill, unless you count the evolutionary imperatives of surviving long enough to breed. But to be a human is to have purposes, and we each make of them what we can. There is no life after death, or even any testable hypothesis as to how such a thing could be possible.the atheist's position.
There is no God, no intelligent design, no purpose for mankind. This life, which is short by comparison with the life of the universe and the earth, is really no more than a 'flash in the pan'. You think you're important because you write a song, invent a new vaccine, or flying car, or you build an orphanage in Romania.
But from the human point of view it's a positive thing to invent a new vaccine, to operate an orphanage, and to write and play music that people like. My own hope is that we all treat each other with decency, respect and inclusion, as I may have mentioned. I don't see that happening soon. If we can get on with that, I don't think it particularly matters what our views regarding religion are.
Last edited: