Emails from Christian apologists: 9


    In one year, a few emails were received from Christians. Some were from Christians who said they were 'Bible sholars' [sic] and 'intellecktuals' [sic]. I presume these are Christians who, after reading a few non-objective fundamentalists books, or undertaking a 3-week correspondence course and a 30 minute multiple-choice 'examination' with a fundamentalist Bible 'institute', believe that they have become experts.
    In the case of the emails received, after patiently reading through them, any hope that there would be anything of substance or relevance was unrealized. It would seem that many Christians are incapable of dealing directly with specific points and are only able to 'respond' with a combination of insults and fanciful, uncorroborated statements and personal opinions (which are stated as if fact).
    Instead of offering any supporting data in a succinct and 'to-the-point' format, the emails were repetitive and rambling and failed to include any data relevant to the subject that the writer chose to raise. Indeed, one might feel tempted to suggest that this is actually quite representative of Christian belief, i.e., lengthy and incoherent ramblings which omit any verifiable facts. It would appear that the writers believe that offering evidence for an assertion can by omitted if the criticism takes on the form of a lengthy and garrulous tirade.
    I find it strange that Christians compose and send lengthy emails which bitterly and often rancorously challenge this website with various accusations that 'it is full of errors' and has 'outdated information' but all writers consistently, and without exception, fail to actually say (i)what these supposed errors are and (ii)why they are erroneous.
    One Christian writer appeared to be very excited in respect of his belief that he could account for the contradiction arising between Mark 16:1 (which says the women followers purchased spices after the sabbath and Luke 23:54 which says the women prepared the spices as the sabbath began:
Mark 16:1:- 'And when the sabbath was past , Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so they they might go and anoint him'.
Luke 23:54: 'It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and saw the tomb, and how his body was laid; then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandments'.
    Bizarrely, he needed to send four emails merely to say that he could supposedly deal with the inconsistency; some of these emails were very lengthy, simply because of the insults included and infantile style adopted. Although this contradiction is only of minor interest as it is just one of the many inconsistences which occur in a supposedly 'infallible and inerrant Bible', there might be greater inclination to read and consider a possible explanation for a contradiction if the writers restricted themselves solely and only to the salient facts rather than wasting their time and mine with paragraphs (or even pages) of infantile name-calling and ramblings.
    Moreover, this particular writer had not bothered to read the comment made elsewhere (which again is self-evident) that it is only necessary to show just one contradiction to demonstrate the Bible is not inerrant and the extravagant statements of Christian fundamentalism regarding the Bible are absolutely worthless. As it appears that so many Christians have difficulty in understanding this, perhaps if it is repeated here and read a second time, they will grasp the situation:-

    Additionally, a number of Christians take it upon themselves to try and show there are no contradictions in the Bible. They do this by selecting a small number listed on various websites (NB. these listings are not exhaustive anyway) and then, by indulging in verbal somersaults, virtually rewriting the text, introducing foreign meanings and/or omitting the pertinent wording, they seek to show that no contradiction arises.
    Apart from the fact they can only do this by indulging in fanciful - and dishonest - manipulation of the material, they fail to grasp the obvious fact that the contradictions are listed to show that the Bible is not inerrant. They appear unable to grasp that if only one contradiction remains, then the Bible is revealed as something which is not inerrant. Consequently, if they are intent on rejecting this view, they obviously need to go through each and every contradiction listed and show why there is no contradiction. There is, therefore, no logic in just selecting a few of these. Only one contradiction is required to show the Bible is not inerrant.

    In sum, there is no logic in trying to explain away one, or a few contradictions, as those which remain continue to be a testimony to the Bible's errancy. To overturn the thesis that the Bible is errant, it is therefore necessary to account for and explain away all the listed contradictions.
    I really do not believe the matter can be stated any more simply than this.

    One feature which has become apparent is that Christians believe that atheists are obliged to offer 'proof' for their stance. This of course is nonsense. As it is Christians who make the positive assertion and affirmation about something that they believe to exist, it is they who are required to offer proof. Atheism simply asserts there is no proof of God or those things that Christians claim to be true, and challenges the supposed evidences that Christians offer up as support for their myriad beliefs. This I would have hoped would be apparent with a limited amount of common-sense applied, but evidently it appears beyond the discernment of many Christians.
    As George H. Smith notes:
'Atheism is the absence of theism...Proof is only applicable in the case of positive belief [therefore] the atheist is not obligated to 'prove' anything. The atheist does not believe anything requiring demonstration'.
(George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1989), p.16)
    And on belief:-
'The presence of an idea does not constitute knowledge. One can have false ideas and false beliefs...to qualify as knowledge, i.e., as a correct identification of reality, a belief must be justified. It must warrant acceptance by rational standards'.
(ibid, p.102).
    As noted above, even though Christians are content to compose tedious and diffuse emails, they apparently feel it is unnecessary to include anything which is factual or supportive of what is being asserted. This appears to be a common practice: as Professor Kai Nielsen observes of Christians when trying to explain God as creator:
'Plainly, language has taken a holiday. We have lots of discourse which purport to be fact-stating, but in reality they fail to represent factual statements. That is to say, they do not function as fact-stating utterances'.
(Kai Nielsen, Philosophy and Atheism (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1989), p.85).