I read a whole bunch of webcomics. I used to follow You’ll Have That, by Wes Molebash, and when that strip ended about a year and a half ago I kept an eye on his work. His current comic is called Max vs. Max, and it’s also an enjoyable read so I’ve been following that too. I was surprised to find, though, that Molebash’s Christian faith plays a huge part in this comic’s storyline. (YHT was apparently a comic written by a Christian, but as the reader I was never made aware of it. Max vs. Max is reasonably described as a Christian comic, and that’s very different.)
Like I said, the infusion of religion hasn’t stopped me from reading. It just threw me for a loop. I was under the impression, based on the characters and dialogue from YHT, that the cartoonist and I have pretty similar outlooks on the world — and clearly that was a mistaken impression, at least in this one big way.
Recently, Molebash posted about his account at formspring.me, that website where you can sign up to let people ask you anonymous questions. This seemed like a good opportunity to find out more about this issue, so I headed over to take a look around, and I was happily surprised to find that others were already posing some tough questions about religion and Christianity in particular. A few weeks back, someone asked, “What do you do when you have doubts?” and got, as part of the answer (a couple minor typos corrected):
Next, I start evaluating the Bible as a reliable text. How do I know if I can trust a book written so long ago and translated so many times? Fortunately, the Bible holds up under heavy scrutiny. As a historical text, the Old and New Testaments are very accurate. There have also been several archaeological discoveries that support places and events described in the Bible. Also, the New Testament has over 5,000 manuscripts that show that it has been translated accurately for over a thousand years.
I was stunned, especially in light of the many impressive collections of contradictions I’ve seen, the frequency with which apologists make assertions about translation errors to explain away those contradictions, and the total bullshit that lies behind every “archaeological discovery” I’ve read about that supposedly proves the Bible is true. (Suffice it to say that the mere existence of Rome or Jerusalem does not prove anything about the specific claims in the Bible.) So, I offered my own question, linking to that YouTube video I posted here not too long ago:
I was surprised to read your answer below, that “the Bible holds up to heavy scrutiny.” Whose heavy scrutiny? What do you say to objections like these: [link] ?
He answered:
I’d say the Bible holds up to the scrutiny of anyone who is earnestly trying to find out if it’s authoritative.
As for the video and the apparent contradictions in the Bible, I think it’s best to look at these verses in context of the passage to find out what the meaning the writer was trying to get across.
This article does a better job of defending the Bible’s authority: [link]
(URLs in both made hyperlinks for ease of reading.) I was sorry to see Molebash make the critical mistake of confusing “trying to find out if the Bible is authoritative” with “trying to find out that the Bible is authoritative.” When atheists and/or skeptics read the Bible (or any other text describing supernatural claims), they consider the claims and consider the evidence for and against them, then they attempt to come to a conclusion on the likely truth value of those claims. When Christians read the Bible, they — by virtue of their being Christians to begin with — are starting with the premise that the Bible is true. I highly doubt that most Christians are reading their Bibles with the goal of figuring out for themselves whether the content is authoritative.
The Bible only stands up to the so-called “scrutiny” of people trying to confirm their own previously formed beliefs about the Bible, upon which they have often hinged their entire identity and all of their feelings of self-worth. It does not stand up to the real scrutiny of outside observers who are actually capable of an objective assessment.
I was also disappointed by Molebash’s use of the old, hackneyed response to contradictions in the Bible: that you have to look at the context. I wish I knew how much context it takes to satisfy Christians, because it seems to always be a little bit more of the text than you’re actually quoting to them. But seriously. How much context is necessary to make the four Gospels actually match up with each other in their description of events — how much more than the entirety of the four Gospels? How much is necessary to reconcile “God commands you to X” with “God commands you to not-X”? How about to make 700 and 7,000 equal each other? When a theist finally explains to me how much additional context I need to consider to make two opposite and mutually exclusive factual claims become identical, I will gladly consider all the context necessary.
Finally, I got referred to someone else who “does a better job” of answering my question. This is another one I get a lot. Personally, I wouldn’t be able to believe in anything as bizarre and counterintuitive as religion without being able to provide an extremely good explanation of it myself — yet somehow, almost every debate I’ve had with a Christian over their beliefs has ended with them saying that they (or I) should go talk to their priest, minister, pastor, or some other religious authority figure to determine the answers to my seemingly unanswerable questions. And when they promise to go get these answers… somehow, I never hear back. It seems to me as though they complacently assume that someone else has figured out all the hard questions, so they can rest easy without ever worrying about them.
Well, guess what? They haven’t figured out all the hard questions. We are still waiting. In my next post I’m going to address the article Wes Molebash linked to, an essay by Gregory Koukl on the (amusingly-named) Stand to Reason website. If this is the “better” answer, then Christian apologists certainly still have their work cut out for them.
Jojo the hun on 
Philip M. Hofer (Frumph)
/ May 7, 2010 at 4:22 pmI have 20 witnesses and 3 written documents and pictures of me near the white house that say i’m the president of the united states.
Because they want me to be the president.
Jamie Lockard
/ May 7, 2010 at 8:06 pmI would like to address a sentence in your writing that brought up two questions,”It does not stand up to the real scrutiny of outside observers who are actually capable of an objective assessment.” Okay so what makes a Christian’s opinion not actually capable of an a objective assessment? What makes someone who isn’t a Christian capable of making that objective assessment?
NFQ
/ May 7, 2010 at 8:23 pmJamie: I don’t think that Christians can objectively assess the Bible because they have presumed from the beginning that the Bible is true (or at least divinely inspired, mostly true, etc.). Admitting that the Bible might be false, or might contain contradictions, is something that challenges many of their long-held beliefs — and I’ve read plenty of stories from atheists who deconverted from Christianity about how they were wracked with guilt when they first admitted to themselves that they might not believe every bit of dogma. It’s stuff you get taught practically from birth, and it comes with threats of eternal hellfire for those who do not believe. It’s hard.
You’re right to call me out on my assertion that non-Christians are completely objective. No one really is. However, in my experience many Christians believe that atheists hate God, and that they want religions to be false. Also in my experience, this is just not true. (I guess it’s conceivable that there are a couple atheists out there like that, but I’ve never met or heard stories of those atheists, and this is not what atheism means.) In general, atheists do not profess faith that there is no God. They merely lack belief in a God, having not yet seen any compelling evidence. If the Bible were to provide that evidence, then they would believe. (Atheist readers, feel free to contradict me if you disagree, but to the best of my knowledge this characterizes the stance of most atheists I know.) I believe that this perspective allows much more objectivity.
Jason Dobbins
/ May 8, 2010 at 10:02 amI’m not sure when I got a bit disillusioned with the church, but I never got disillusioned with God.
There is a difference.
Man is flawed. Extremely flawed, and I believe the bible is extremely flawed. I do not think of it as ‘the word of God’ because the word of God is very contradicting, even when it tells the same stories within, but in a way, what he said above, for me, it’s the context of the book that’s important. Now, he can argue that all he wants, I’m not gonna fight him on that. I don’t pull out my bible anytime I am having a problem, because most of the context or parables in the ‘good book’ are known by most people.
yet I’m also a ‘whack-a-doo’ christian, or not one at all by some standards, just because I believe in god AND evolution. I know. Crazy.
I just don’t believe that an all power being gets upset that I don’t have a problem with gays or I’m not gonna 100% believe without a doubt that maybe the guy all those years ago wasn’t telling the entire truth when he was writing his particular chapter in the bible. But that’s me. You could also say that is what faith is about, but I have faith that God is just that what I said. He can punish me for all the things I’ve done wrong, I’m fine with that, but…
NFQ
/ May 8, 2010 at 10:25 amJason: Good for you for understanding evolution, and good for you for admitting that the Bible is probably not literally true. Once you get to that point, though, why do you still believe in God (a God with the attributes suggested by Christianity, presumably)? It seems to me that if other unrealistic or unsavory statements in the Bible can be tossed out as unimportant, as likely exaggerations, or as metaphors, there’s no reason to assume that the big stuff doesn’t fall into one of those categories as well.
Canterrain
/ May 8, 2010 at 8:46 pmHi there!
Thanks for the response on my site, I thought about communicating straight to you that I’d posted a response but didn’t really have a good feel for the best way to do that/etiquette.etc.
Thanks for clearing some of my confusion on the issue of context, I watched the videos you linked but I just didn’t make the connection somehow. I think I’m going to leave my article as is with your correction clearly visible, and should I do anymore follow up address that there.
As for your links, I can’t comment to the first yet (It’s 49 pages, whew…)
The second I might argue against though. I’ll probably agree that it’s likely 85% of of American’s where raised in what they’d call Christian homes. But where they raised Christian? That tends to be different things entirely. I had a mother who claimed to be Christian (sometimes), and a father who claimed atheism. Which category do I fall into?
I think with the current, and previous generation, it would be more accurate to call them raised around Christian homes… if you get my drift.
TheInterloper
/ May 8, 2010 at 10:40 pmYou want an example of how much context is needed when comparing scriptures? (by the way, critical thinking is also needed) Look no further than the video you posted. I only watched the very beginning of it, but take the second “contradiction” for example.
In James, the author is clearly referring to sin. God does not tempt someone to sin against him. In Genesis it is totally different. God has something he wants Abraham to do, and urges him or tempts him, if you will, to do it. If you continue reading, you see that this was a test for Abraham to show how faithful and obedient he would be to God.
Now I know you won’t buy this as an acceptable explanation, but certainly you must agree that it isn’t as simple and cut-and-dry as you suggested. It’s more than a matter of “this verse says one thing and this one says the exact opposite.”
Aristarchus
/ May 8, 2010 at 11:15 pmI don’t understand this phenomenon where extremely religious Christians try to define the word “Christian” to exclude most actual Christians. If your parents called themselves Christians, believed in God, believed Jesus was the messiah, etc., then they were Christian. If they told you as you were growing up that those things were true, you were raised Christian. You might not have gone to church every weekend, but that just makes you less observant – you’re still Christian. Canterrain’s situation does sound ambiguous, but the vast majority of Americans were raised Christian in a totally unambiguous way.
NFQ
/ May 8, 2010 at 11:47 pmCanterrain: Good to see you around here! I think Aristarchus’s comment does a good job of answering your question about being raised Christian. What standard should we use other than asking people what they would consider their home to be? Who gets to define what makes a “good enough Christian” for the purposes of statistics-gathering?
TheInterloper: I didn’t make the video, I just thought it made a good point particularly vividly. There are tons of contradictions there, and it wouldn’t surprise me if a few not-really-contradictory ones slipped in. Give me some credit — I see the point you’re making, and it’s possible that the use of the word “tempt” in Genesis is a bit of a mistranslation because the senses don’t really match up exactly. However, my point doesn’t depend on every single example in this video being a true contradiction. As long as some of them are, my argument still stands.
Aristarchus: I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve met people of many different Christian denominations, with varying degrees of devoutness, who were happy to explain to me about the other so-called Christians who didn’t really do it right and therefore didn’t really count. I’m not sure the “extremely religious” have a monopoly on this practice. But you’re right, it’s silly.
Canterrain
/ May 10, 2010 at 1:33 amAristarchus,
Let me set aside your fears of my being an “extremely religious Christian (who) tr(ies) to define the word “Christian” to exclude most actual Christians.” Because I wasn’t trying to get at that at all, but unfortunately due to the fact that I don’t want to write ten paragraphs on a note section of someone else’s website here I wasn’t able to express myself clearly enough.
The short of it is, as far as I’m concerned a Christian is a person who professes the belief that they are a sinner, and Jesus is their savior. That’s all you have to be. Yes, we strive to try and be better men, but we’re human, we fail, and we all suck. I’ll never say that just because a person doesn’t act a certain way they aren’t a Christian or ‘good enough’. I’ma stop there before thewhole ten paragraph thing happens, suffice to say see here: http://www.lifequill.com/page/7/ I touch on it more thoroughly (but not thoroughly enough since it’s not the main subject)
My point was something else. Statistically speaking, many people were raised ‘in Christian homes’. Statistically speaking, I was. But in actuality, I would not be surprised if in being raised they were never really told of the Gospel, the nature of Jesus, what his sacrifice was, or given any examples of church life (if that counts to you), and etc. I wasn’t. I know quite a few Christians, ‘raised in Christian homes’, who weren’t. For a variety of different reasons, from parents who always worked, to parents who claimed to be Christians but weren’t (In the words of the children in question), to figuring that was the Church (that they didn’t attend)’s job.
Let me put it shorter this way Ari, you said: “If they told you as you were growing up that those things were true, you were raised Christian.” My contention is, in alot of statistically Christian homes, exactly that NEVER happened.
But they still fall into statistically Christian because NFQ is right in suggesting exactly how you define it for statistics is murky, hard, and often even misleading. Think back to how many people used to answer Christian/etc. on such surveys before an agnostic choice was available. (Didn’t want to say atheist, so Christian it is!) It’s a similar problem.
Aristarchus
/ May 10, 2010 at 8:47 pmI don’t know what it means to you for someone to be “really told the nature of Jesus” and so forth. I fully concede that most children don’t get elaborate discussions of religious philosophy. When it comes to bias in examining the Bible, though, all that matters is whether children, as they were growing up, were told that the Bible was true or not. I’m not going to put in the time to find lots of different polls and average them and examine methodology and so on… clearly they’re imperfect, but polling report has a bunch of useful stuff. 92% believe in God in some way. 77% believe in the divinity of the Bible (28% literal word, 49% divinely inspired). Now it’s possible that all these people say they believe in God but then turn around and tell their children that he doesn’t exist, but I doubt it. Yes, people say they’re religious a little more to a pollster than to their family, but not that much. The vast majority of Americans tell their children to believe the Bible. And those numbers are for the US overall. I suspect that in self-identified “Christian homes” the numbers are much higher.
Canterrain
/ June 15, 2010 at 12:42 pmHi!
I wanted to let you know what was going on in response to your questions.
The good news is I haven’t moved on to bigger and better things.
The bad news is, I had been working full time, finishing up schooling, and working on my wedding. So very very busy.
The better news is, I do think I will have a response up very soon (hopefully, this week!), and I’ll give you a shoutout then!
NFQ
/ June 17, 2010 at 1:58 pmHi Canterrain! Good luck with all the stuff you’ve got going on (and congratulations on the upcoming wedding!) — I look forward to your response, whenever it is that you get to it.
jorge alvarado
/ August 3, 2010 at 12:55 amRe your response to janie
“In general, atheists do not profess faith that there is no God. They merely lack belief in a God, having not yet seen any compelling evidence. ”
Does any atheist have “compelling evidence” AGAINST the existence of God??
Re: “If the Bible were to provide that evidence, then they would believe.”
What has “compelling evidence” that cannot be debunked or questioned?
NFQ
/ August 3, 2010 at 9:40 am@jorge: You are going backward. We do not start out by believing every assertion, and then searching for evidence that some of them are wrong. Do you have compelling evidence that there’s no such thing as mermaids? No, you just know that you’ve never seen a mermaid, and all the stories you’ve heard about mermaids seem easily explainable by phenomena you are familiar with. It makes the most sense to default to not believing in mermaids until you get some new evidence.
I could provide you compelling evidence or arguments against many specific versions of God. Scriptures of different religions tend to make particular claims about reality and about the nature of God that we can then go check out, or that we can logically evaluate. But just as I can’t provide any evidence against “an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire,” I can’t provide evidence against any kind of “god” whatsoever. I can just say — well, that sounds pretty implausible to me. Show me some reason why I should believe it, and I will.
jorge alvarado
/ August 3, 2010 at 1:20 pmRe your response to “The Interloper”
“However, my point doesn’t depend on every single example in this video being a true contradiction. As long as some of them are, my argument still stands.”
Well, what if ALL the contradictions in that video were shown to be false contradictions to you? I believe you would just come up with another “list”, then another, and so on.
Re “Show me some reason why I should believe it, and I will.”
In dealing with things spiritual, I would have no problem. I would go to the word of God (the biblical God) to help you understand. The bible is divided into 2 parts, old testament, and new testament. The old testament attests to things future (mainly God’s plan for redemption), and the new testament refers to the old ; sometimes for explanation, sometimes for historical reference.
If you seek proof material, that would be hard. Admittedly, if Jesus himself said ( I’m new here, please forgive me if I use scripture):
Joh 3:11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.
Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Spiritual things are discerned with help of the (Holy ) Spirit. I will always try to answer questions with scripture.
NFQ
/ August 3, 2010 at 2:09 pm@jorge:
You’re right that that video is not an exhaustive list of all contradictions ever found in the Bible. You’re also right I would not be suddenly convinced of Christianity’s truth if all the contradictions mentioned in the video were shown to be not contradictory. But then, a perfectly self-consistent thing can still be wrong. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here.
What do you mean by “things spiritual” as opposed to “proof material”? How do “things spiritual” constitute a reason I should believe, while not being “proof”?
You’re welcome to quote the Bible here; I have no problem with that. But you should know that “it says so in the Bible!” is not a convincing argument to those of us who do not think the Bible is a reliable, authoritative source in the first place. (See: this post you’re commenting on.)
jorge alvarado
/ August 3, 2010 at 3:40 pmRe “What do you mean by “things spiritual” as opposed to “proof material”?
How can you expect me, or anyone else, to provide proof material (or tangible proof) for the existence of God? Should I find for you things inexplicable by human reasoning?, would miracles count?, or will you now say miracles can’t happen, therefore they don’t happen?
Re “But you should know that “it says so in the Bible!” is not a convincing argument to those of us who do not think the Bible is a reliable, authoritative source in the first place.”
Now we’re getting somewhere. What would it take to prove the bible IS a reliable, authoritative source ?. It speaks of actual world geography, actual historical events, actual historical people, actual prophecies that have come true, etc.
NFQ
/ August 3, 2010 at 6:03 pm@jorge: You have still not explained what you meant when you said, “In dealing with things spiritual, I would have no problem.”
If you are interested in the kinds of things that many atheists, including myself, would find compelling as reasons to convert, this essay is a good place to start. I wrote about it here a few months back.
There are plenty works of historical fiction that speak of actual places, actual events, and actual people. That does not mean that every word in them is true, and the novels themselves are not the proof that those places/events/people were or are real. A children’s book about Benjamin Franklin is not compelling evidence that his invisible friend, a talking penny, was also a real historical figure. A Biblical prophecy that has come true would be nice, so if you’d like to provide examples of those it’d be great. There are some good criteria laid out in that essay I linked above (right near the beginning) for what makes a convincing prophecy fulfillment; please read those first.
It would also be nice for the Bible’s credibility as a reliable document if there were any evidence that its origins were anything like what is claimed. Biblical scholars and historians have a good picture of the politics that shaped the text of the Bible, and the different people who, at different times, created or changed or discarded parts of the Bible as suited their needs. Why should I believe as the “gospel truth” what is in large part ancient political propaganda?
jorge alvarado
/ August 3, 2010 at 7:55 pmWhat I meant by “In dealing with things spiritual, I would have no problem.” Is that I would engage anybody in matters relating to questions about God and religion (with a level playing field, meaning they believe in God, but just don’t understand Him or what the bible says). Sort of the opposite of what you want (to start from zero and convince you there is a God). I cannot offer tangible proof for the existence of God. No one can.
I found the reasons to convert in the essay you suggested utterly unfair. It is basically asking me to provide proof that God exists without allowing me access to the ONLY proof of His existence. What He has said, done, and taught me.
It would be like you trying to convince me that God does NOT exist by using only biblical references. (like with the “contradictions” in the video).
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,”
Psa 14:1 To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.
Thank you for the exchange. I’ll be back in a while.
Henry Lodsworth
/ January 7, 2011 at 6:10 pmMy initial frustration is in the concept that a God-created sinless image & likeness of that all knowing, wise, loving God (Adam) would choose the antithesis of his very essence; Death, – and that while still filled with the Ruah/ Spirit of that God including the Life, wisdom and power He provides, as well as still being outside of the influence of a sin-nature.
To say Lust was his motivating force would presuppose Adam was created with Lust, that sin which Jesus said is the equivalent of adultery, yet this would contradict that Adam was the image AND likeness of God, for God has no sin or lust within Him.
If Adam was created in God’s image and likeness then what part of Adam wasn’t created in God’s image and God’s likeness?
Upon this catch-22 hangs the entire doctrine of sin and need for forgiveness, – that which is the core essence of the Bible.
It is more than difficult for me to logically & rationally accept that the all-knowing creator of the universe achieved a 100% failure rate in creating His own image, ie: “All have sinned and fall short…”
I also find it a logical impossibility to accept that the image and likeness of the Creator of the universe would choose that which is diametrically opposed to life, love, wisdom, truth, etc., especially considering his essence at that time was God’s image and likeness, and NOT YET sin in nature.
If you can help me either to find that blissful path whereby I no longer need a mind constrained by reason and can believe in that which is contrary to reasonable logical deduction without concern for my loss of sanity so that I may once again believe, or, explain to me wherein my logic is flawed so I may attain that bliss of believing, I would certainly appreciate it, especially considering that I was born, raised and active in several Protestant fellowships/ churches (including Bible college) until I was 24, and I truly miss that feeling of belonging, and knowing a future eternity of joy & love awaits.
Thank you in all sincerity,
Hank
grizzlybaker
/ January 11, 2011 at 11:04 pmTheInterloper:
But sometimes, TheInterloper, that is the case:
James 2
Romans 3
I don’t think anyone can argue that one argues explicitly for sola fide while the other is explicitly faith and works. Which is both: a clear contradiction; important enough a theological point to divide Christendom; enough to kill the idea of biblical innerrancy.
Dustin Thymme
/ August 3, 2011 at 6:35 pmOnly true faith produces good works, first the horse, then the cart filled with good works, and the ‘Horse’ is the risen Jesus’ completed work on the cross: Forgiveness for all.
It is first and foremost, for Jesus clarifies, “The sin of the WORLD is they do not believe in me”.
First come out from the world in the renewing of your mind, true repentance, accepting the truth of Jesus FINISHED work upon the cross, total and complete forgiveness, then you may believe and receive eternal life from God which begins your walk of faith filled with fruit from Spirit’s good works, good works you cannot accomplish in the flesh.
No amount of so-called “Good works” will provide anyone with that which is prerequisite to life in the Spirit, faith in what Jesus was, did and finished. Remember his words, “It is Finished”.
And so it is!
Now GO, walk in the Spirit of truth, not returning like a Dog to it’s vomit, trying again and again to purchase repeated forgiveness with your false humility and pride.
Accept the truth or walk away in error.