If it is, god must have had a lot of really bad days
Especially among evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, this remains a deeply cherished claim: that the Bible is true and trustworthy because it was dictated by god. In Caravaggio’s 1602 painting, an angel directs the hand of Matthew as he writes his gospel. But even the most pious conservative Christians must have their doubts when they come across Bible verses that are alarming, cruel, barbaric. Clergy and theologians—who have perfected the art of making excuses—try to rush to the rescue. Careful Bible study by the curious faithful is probably their biggest fear.
Rethinking Inerrancy so as to Take Account of All the Errors in the Bible:
Hopeful Theism used to be an agnostic, however these days he seems to have converted to some sort of High-Church Christianity; possibly Roman Catholicism. I cannot understand this conversion. I engaged with him a number of times in his comments section. He said that he remains “critical” of apologetics, and yet here he is allowing Mike Licona to redefine ‘inerrancy’, in an Orwellian fashion, without any pushback.
Inerrancy must be defined in dishonest post-hoc ways because the Bible is littered with errors. It is difficult to imagine a book more erroneous than the Bible. Thus, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) defines only the original manuscripts as inerrant. These original manuscripts certainly don't exist today, and the late great Hector Avalos (–) would have argued that they never existed. Avalos would employ the analogy of his own College Lectures so as to disprove the idea that a discrete set of “original manuscripts” existed. Which version of a hypothetical lecture by Avalos would have been the “original” one? His first draft? An edited and corrected version? If Avalos should depart from his script whilst giving his lecture and ex-temporise, then would the transcript of an audio recording of this lecture then be the “original” version of this lecture? Similarly with books of the Bible. As regards the composition of the books of the Bible, in all likelihood, there would have been a period of open textuality; a period of correction and redaction; a period of insertions and deletions; in which numerous versions of the “original” Biblical Book existed simultaneously.
Avalos discusses the topic of inerrancy, and the concept of there being “original manuscripts” in his The End of Biblical Studies ().
This is an excellent video! I highly recommend it on David Hume’s Part 1 argument against miracles. It looks like my arguments on behalf of the outsider test for faith are included. It cuts to the chase.
Now consider my discussion below. I think I came up with a new take on miracles!
That is, from our perspective, our knowledge of how the world works
I’m pretty sure many devout Christians have found themselves saying—not out loud, of course—when reading some Bible verses: “That’s crazy!” Not even Jesus-script is exempt. In Matthew 10:37, we find this: “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me…” The author of Luke’s gospel apparently didn’t think this was strong enough, thus we find in Luke 14:26, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.” In Mark 13, Jesus claims that the coming of the kingdom will be brutal: “Siblings will betray sibling to death and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death…” (v.12) In John 6:53-58, Jesus says that the key to eternal life is drinking his blood and eating his flesh—which is straight out of pagan superstition.
I met James Aames at the 2025 American Atheists National Convention where I learned of his book. I wish I had thought of such a thing. In it Aames takes believers through the fears they might have--whether real or imagined--that keep them away from rejecting their religious faith. It has 301 pages of good advice using an extremely good approach! It's brilliant! He's allowed me to share the last section in his book, below. Go get it at Amazon!
More episodes of pious superstition to boost holy hero Jesus
It would seem that one of the primary goals of the author of Mark was to promote the idea that Jesus was a superior being from the spiritual realm. Indeed the Christian church would eventually claim that Jesus is a part of god himself, that is, he is one of the persons in the Holy Trinity. And Mark told stories to make this seem vividly real—stories that are clearly rooted in ancient superstitions. For people with the least grasp of how the world works—even devout Christians—Mark 5:1-20 has to be an embarrassment. It is a patch of scripture they can do without, because it’s just too deeply rooted in beliefs that can no longer be defended.
In my article here last week I mentioned the Catholic sacrament known as the Eucharist, in which the wafer and wine—through the miracle of transubstantiation—actually become the body and blood of Jesus. So the church claims, based on really creepy Jesus-script in John 6:53-58. We’re dealing here with magical thinking, that is, the body and blood become magic potions that guarantee eternal life. Holy Water, which supposedly has healing power because it has been blessed by a priest, also reflects magical thinking. Hence baptism also falls into this category: the sprinkling of blessed water on an infant while reciting sacred words, protects the child’s soul. In 1981, following the assassination attempt on Pope John-Paul II, the pope had one of the bullets added to the crown of the Virgin Mary at Fatima. He was sure that Mary, Queen of Heaven, had diverted the bullet to miss an artery. This is crazy, illogical magical thinking: why didn’t the Heavenly Queen Mary divert the bullet to miss the pope altogether?
There are precursors of our own reasoning abilities found in animals. There is morality, consciousness, tool-making, learning, problem-solving, community, and communication. 1
At some point human beings could comprehend that an A(pple) is an A(pple) and not an O(range), so A=A and A≠O.
They also comprehended something we must all do to stay alive.
1. If we want to stay alive then we must eat. 2. We want to stay alive. 3. Therefore we must eat.
The above is a logical argument known as modus ponens, which is one of the most basic rules of logic. I see no reason to think we need a God to know this. All we need is an information processor that computes the steps. And we have one: a brain. Evolution explains where that came from quite simply.
I have often wondered why membership in the Catholic church isn’t down to zero by now—and I’ve voiced this curiosity quite a few times in my articles here. The Catholic church to date has paid out 3 to 4 BILLION dollars in legal fees because of child abuse/rape by its clergy. Why haven’t Catholics abandoned the church en masse? When Pope Francis was elected in 2013, and was welcomed as a breath of fresh air, the best thing he could have done was hold a weekly press conference to explain all the measures he had taken to get rid of pedophile priests—how many had been expelled from their positions and turned over to the police; what improved screening processes had been initiated to prevent such men from being ordained; what ongoing counseling programs had been established to help priests behave—including high ranking clergy who have transferred offending priests to other parishes. Of course, sexual abuse has come to light in many other Christian brands, but this hideous scandal qualifies the Catholic church as a dangerous cult.
