Christians - Oblivious to their own Contradictions

How to Answer a Jesus Critic

I recently read something that I found quite amusing that I would like to share. I downloaded this little gem titled "How to Answer a Jesus Critic" by Scott Sullivan PhD.  for free, so I took a glance, and in no time at all I found a blatant contraction in BOLD lettering--in his second argument no less!!

 The so-called 'scholars' are attempting to 'shock and awe' the gullible into believing their propaganda, but it doesn't take long for anyone with a basic understanding of logic to see through their BS, which is quite evident these days. (Thank God for that!!)   Christians you see, are becoming anxious in the United States as their numbers are dwindling quite rapidly. Even they admit that once so-called 'Christians' enter college, 60-90% of them become unbelievers. Why, this is exactly what happened to me as well a long time ago, and I am quite pleased that the trend continues.

Despite that fact, the die hard Christian believers still think they can prove their god with logic, when they have no grasp of it themselves. Even the PhD's. How sad...:(  For them--not me. I find it quite amusing actually.

Here's an example of what I am talking about.

Below was cut and pasted directly from this book. See if you can spot the contradiction:
____________________________

 “God doesn’t care which religion you believe.”

   Response: First of all, how do you know what God cares about? Has he told you? He didn’t

tell me. Where did you get this idea?

Secondly: it is impossible that all religions can be true, since they make contradictory

claims.

       So if one religion is true, then it follows that any other religion which contradicts the true one 
       must be false.        

       God being all-wise and loving, prefers that you believe truth over error.

   So if there is a true religion, clearly that is the one that God wants you to believe.
 

Finally, the God of the Bible certainly cares about which religion you believe.

     In the Old Testament the Jewish people were constantly warned not to worship

the gods of the pagans. Moreover, Jesus thinks it matters what religion you believe

     and said so on numerous occasions. For example, in Mark 16:15-16 Jesus said,

“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

    Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be    

    condemned.  ”So Jesus certainly thinks it matters what you believe. 

_____________________________

 If you haven't spotted it yet, let me help you out.  In the first line of his response he tells us, how do you know what God cares about? Has he told you? He didn't me. Where did you get this idea?  To which I say, EXACTLY.  But that's not the point. The point I am making here is about what he says next.  Go down a few more lines and he tells us that:

...THE GOD OF THE BIBLE CERTAINLY CARES ABOUT WHICH RELIGION YOU BELIEVE.

So I would ask this so-called 'Christian scholar' exactly how he knows the god of the Bible cares about which religion I believe. How do you know what God cares about? Has he told you? He didn't tell me. Where did you get this idea?

It's bad enough that he is begging the question (a fallacy) when he concludes his religion is the one true religion without evidence and therefore argues that since his is the one true religion, all the others must be false--but to put such a blatant contradiction on the same page and expect no one to notice.--priceless.

I forgot just how much fun this is...  See you soon. I think I might just go over the entire book and give my 'review'. I can't stop laughing......

Addendum: I've taken a photo of that page with the link address and downloaded the book in case Mr. Sullivan realizes his errors and just eliminates the document and tries to pretend it never existed--which would be my advice...:).  And please, please DO NOT order the so-called 'logic' courses this non-expert is offering, as if this little book is any indication of the type of 'logic' he has to offer, you will be wasting your hard earned money.

Did Yahweh Create the Jews, or Did the Jews Create Yahweh?

Let me begin by paraphrasing Ludwig Feuerbach: "Yahweh has not created the Jews, but the Jews created Yahweh."  I will prove that this is the case, in that the attributes ascribed to Yahweh in the bible by Jews and Christians came from them, and are not based on the dispositions of an actual entity.

To "ascribe" something means to credit or assign, as to a cause or source; attribute; impute.

For example, the alphabet is usually ascribed to the Phoenicians. This however, does not necessarily mean that the Phoenicians are responsible for developing the alphabet, it just means that it has been ascribed to them as they are the most likely group to have first developed an alphabet. Another example would be ascribing the property of "brittleness" to chalk.  We know this to be true, as we have experienced the brittleness of chalk. 

Now let us examine the case of the Jews and Yahweh. Is their description of the attributes of Yahweh based on an actual entity with the attributes ascribed?  In other words, is there an actual entity named Yahweh with the attributes ascribed to him by the Jews?  Just as in the examples stated above, ascribed attributes do not necessarily mean that they are actual and real, based on an actual cause or source. I will prove using the best explanation argument, that they are not.

Let us assume for the sake or argument that the attributes ascribed to Yahweh are as stated in the bible by Jews and Christians.  In the OT he is described as an angry, vengeful, jealous god, whose love is conditional to obeying his laws and commandments.  In the NT, Yahweh is described as all-loving, and all-good.

I do not go just by definition, but by arguments as well.  Problems with the attribute theory arise when we apply scripture to the Christian god. For example, let's assume what the bible, Tom Gilson and other Christians say is true, in that Yahweh/Jesus is love.  The logic below tells us that he could not have the ascribed attributes of love and jealousy.  Although the Jews and Christians ascribe the attribute of "love" to their god, the scriptures themselves make it clear that god is NOT love:

"But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8

"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud " 1 Corinthians 13:4

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"  Exodus 20:5

In the logical form of Modus Tollens, the following is the conclusion drawn from the above passages:

IF god is love, THEN god is not jealous. God IS jealous.  Therefore god is NOT love.

The above illustrates clearly that the bible is contradictory, and inconsistent, and Yahweh cannot have the attributes of love and jealousy ascribed to him, as according to the bible, they are inconsistent and contradictory, or it leads to absurdity that Christians must accept the fact that the bible is wrong as the definition of love that I cited above comes from the bible!! Therefore, the best explanation is that the Jews ascribed the attributes to their god that they wanted him to have, or, the Bible is wrong!

A similar problem exists for ascribing the attribute of being "all good" to Yahweh, which I have already proven in the following post:  Christian Ethics Exposed

I reiterate my conclusion, "Yahweh has not created the Jews, but the Jews created Yahweh," or the bible is wrong, and the attributes ascribed to Yahweh in the bible by Jews and Christians came from them, and are not based on the dispositions of an actual entity. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS IS FALSE! Otherwise, the Christian claim that Yahweh is "all-loving" is false, as he was jealous, and he can't be all-loving and jealous at the same time. Ahhhhh.......so either way, the bible is wrong!

Contradictions in the Gospels?--Oh YES!!!!

Mike Licona, a Christian apologist, and editor of the book, "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science," recently contributed to a video in an attempt to defend the Christian claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible.  The video is below:

With a retro/techno look (after much experience, Christians have become adept at the Bernays/"Mad Men" techniques of "public relations"), the "New Apologists" are "coming out" in their quest to appeal to the young and malleable masses. It may be a new look, but it is still the same old "song and dance."

In his first attempt at defending the gospels, he claims that the so-called "contradictions" are mere "differences." To illustrate that he is mistaken, first we need the definitions of the words, which are below. Then, we will illustrate the "logically incongruous-ness" of the gospels via example.

Difference:

1. difference: the state or relation of being different; dissimilarity: There is a great difference between the two.

2. an instance or point of unlikeness or dissimilarity: What accounts for the differences in their behavior?

3. a significant change in or effect on a situation: His tact makes a difference in the way people accept his suggestions.

Contradiction:

1. the act of contradicting;  gainsaying or opposition.

2. assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.

3. a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.

"It was impossible for God to lie." Hebrews 6:18

"For with God nothing shall be impossible." Luke 1:37

Let's assume what the bible says is true, and that everything is possible for god. If everything is possible for god, then it is possible for god to lie, but the bible tells us it is impossible for God to lie. If it is impossible for god to lie, then it is not possible for God to tell a lie. So, according to the bible, it is possible for God to lie, and it is not possible for God to lie--which is a contradiction.

Another interesting contradiction is that according to Matthew 3-4, there can be no doubt that immediately after his baptism by John, Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan for 40 days and 40 nights, whereas in John 2 he was present at the marriage in Cana 3 days after his baptism--which would put Jesus in two places at the same time, and would be another contradiction.

Now, Licona attempts to defend the above "contradiction" (and it is a contradiction) by claiming that we need to understand the "Greco-Roman biography", and just like much in today's "literature," there were certain "literary liberties" that were allowed, such as their use of "time compression." By his statement then, we can conclude that the writers were at "liberty" to make up things, just as the Greco-Roman writers did when they wrote about Apollo, or Hera, or Zeus, as in Homer's Iliad. So, by his statements then, is the Christian claim that jesus is god, just another "liberty" they are taking with the text? If the bible cannot be consistent with minor points, then why should any of the major points be considered valid? There is no reason.

It is well known by most learned bible scholars that the Jews were well known for embellishing their texts, and Greeks are also well known for imaginative story telling--which is a better explanation for discrepancies in a so -called "inerrant book" that is obviously packed with errors. Furthermore, if, as Licona also states there is a "lack of precision" in the writings of the bible, then we have no way of knowing what is "precise" and what is not--thereby making all of it unreliable. Like I said--it is still the same old "song and dance."

Remember, even Licona stated there is a "lack of precision" in the writings of the bible. I have to say I am happy to finally hear some "truth" on the subject uttered by one of the "New Apologists." The "lack of precision" means literally, that they make it mean whatever they want it to mean--which has proven to be dangerous, over and over again.