this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2025
311 points (91.7% liked)
Data is Beautiful
2823 readers
409 users here now
Be respectful
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, I have a background in religious history and texts, I took five random contradictions and checked them out, just for fun. Every single one of those either, missed the context from neighboring passages, or missed the point completely. I'm not here to say that there are no contradictions in the Bible, but the work here is shoddy at best.
Not to mention that the old and new testament are generally viewed as distinct collections of scripture where the new testament is meant to replace the old testament. Any contradictions between the two are easily dismissed as just that, new replacing old.
That's not to say bigots won't use the old testament to push their dogma's though.
So, this is an interesting tidbit. Although they are two distinct collections, in the Christian mythos they are, generally, taken equally. Or at least, they are supposed to be. Different sects in the church have varying degrees of equality, so to speak. However, they are both part of the doctrine. To say that new replaces old is a sweeping generalization that cannot, and should not, be made, when discussing the Christian mythos.
I have a background in having been raised by religious nutjobs, but I did the same and was very disappointed by how badly these get it wrong. I’d love a handy meme guide of actual contradictions that I can casually share, but this is not it.
Yeah, if I had more time, I'd do it. But even still, I think memes eliminate a large portion of the discussion and nuance that these contradictions require. It's not as white or black, as I've seen folks make it out to be. I'm sorry you had a bumpy upbringing, in that regard. I did as well and went the complete opposite way. I delved into every religion and I love them all! Cheers!
I’d say I am still interested in the philosophy that underpins some religions, I simply reject all mythological supernaturalism. Having been raised by classic Stephen King religious villains, I absolutely reject the entire concept of organized, centralized religion, appeal to authority or deity, and mystical thinking of any kind.
That said, I am a big fan of Jesus’ teaching. I don’t buy the “magical faith healer” nonsense, but I absolutely agree with his teaching, which is deeply humanist. Most religions have a kernel of profound humanism at their center, but all of them have been co-opted by the rich and powerful and metastasized into weapons of oppression, control, and abuse.
Thanks for sharing your expertise with us!
Are there any major contradictions that come to mind off the top of your head?
Haha, thanks for saying expertise! I would decline the compliment though. I minored in religious histories and actually was one credit away, but didn't finish. Mostly because I was ready to be done with Electrical Engineering, my major. I regret that, now. So, in my humble opinion, the contradiction/discussion on whether G-d does evil is the most fascinating. Isaiah 45:7 depicts G-d as the creator of all, peace, chaos, light, and darkness. But multiple times, especially in the new testament which generally switches over to G-d being a god of mercy, depicts G-d as someone who does not do evil. Some theologians blame the council of Rome for the inaccuracies, but I think it's more complicated than that, as the old testament is not without a merciful G-d.
I think it might come from that, and I do feel like there's something missing in the canon. There's honestly so many missing texts, that it's a shame. But I think G-d is in a superposition, almost. He is all, at the same time. However, this is just my personal explanation that comes with my own personal biases. This is just the example that came to mind, because it's one that can't be brushed off. Looking into the definition of the Hebrew words for light, darkness, chaos, peace, leads to discussion as to the actual meaning behind it. Is it allegorical? Is it definitionally exact? Who knows!
But yeah, in a nutshell, that's my favorite one and I like all the discussion by folks, much much smarter than me with Doctorates in the subject. I'm actually friends with a Doctor whose focus is on whether G-d does evil, so that might bias me again lol. But it really is so fascinating. As society, especially in the western Christian Church, G-d is thought of as this one dimensional character. But in reality, He is multidimensional, varied, and extremely complex. I hope this dump wasn't too much. I highly recommend reading through some dissertations on any subject/contradictions you find, as it is incredibly complex and fascinating to read through.
Info dumps by nerdy folks who are passionate about stuff are my favorite!! ☺️☺️
That's super interesting, thanks for explaining! And yeah that's a pretty central contradiction, I can see how that'd drive a lot of theological debate/discussion. Even within the public consciousness it feels like you have the two versions of the christian god, the "turn the other cheek" and the wrathful god you must learn to fear.
I get not wanting to accept the compliment, there's often a really big difference between a true expert within a field of study and someone with "expertise" in the more coloquial sense of someone having significantly more specialized knowledge than a layman. Regardless, you know a lot more than me or most other folks in this thread and I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge and perspective with us ☺️
Anytime! Like I said, it's a passion/hobby of mine, so I like to delve into it. Religion is so fascinating and it's cool how so many religions have emphasis on peace and love that gets distorted by humans. I'm saddened by some of the comments in the thread, as it's a large indication of people who refuse to be curious and learn, and would rather stay ignorant. Cheers!
You can say god on the internet, the fuck?
So, that comes from a Jewish tradition where G-d's name should never be destroyed. I've subscribed to that theology myself, because I like it. If you'd like more information on my religious beliefs, it could be easily summed up as, I believe G-d is in everything. The air, our pencils, our food. He is all encompassing. I believe there is great truths in all religious texts and to dismiss any, is of great detriment to one's personal spiritual journey. So, yeah. When referencing G-d's name, I do not write it. But that's just my own personal journey, no need to get hot about it lol
Every single one? But there are contradictions? And somehow they managed to avoid including the real contradictions?
Edit: retracted text from my comment: You know this because of an image with text too blurry to read?". I forgot the check the high res option. Original point remains.
I took a random sample. I chose five at random. Those samples were inaccurate. Therefore, I can conclude with certaintity, that the data set is mostly inaccurate. Which is not surprising given the large size of the set. When dealing with factual contridictions, you must examine the historical context, breadth of the text, and related text to the original in question. The Bible is not the only holy book in the Christian mythos.
When dealing with all of these as a whole, you do find some rather interesting contradictions. Some that are hotly debated today in the church. But it's not nearly to the scale of what the graph depicts. I'm perfectly fine discussing inaccuracies, contradictions, similarities to other mythos. Frankly, I love it. But I don't like graphs like this because they're often riddled with inaccuracies and immediately shut down all the incredible discussion these mythos from these sacred texts that people have written over thousands of years and have cared, died, and fought over. It's rather dismissive and haughty, and I don't care for it; in a data based forum.
Edit: minor grammatical errors. Changed comma to period.
Respectable response.
Why would you assume that the person saying they took 5 random contradictions would use "all of those" to refer to anything other than those 5?
Perfectly legible text for me. Voyager for iOS.
Edit: here a screenshot
Thanks for the screenshot. I didn't think to look for the high res option.
But that still leaves the issue of managing to check every single one, knowing they were dismissible and also knowing they missed the contradictions they know are there. What are the odds that this managed to avoid any that the commenter knows exist?
As the other person said. They took five.
Also, I like to take positive intent and assume the best in people.
He said he took five at random, and the "every single one" was in reference to those five.