3 ms·

The Ambrahamic faiths are arguably some of the most "mature" ideologies in existence, and I don't think any (secular) religious scholar would describe them as s

The Ambrahamic faiths are arguably some of the most "mature" ideologies in existence, and I don't think any (secular) religious scholar would describe them as self-consistent. (This isn't a slight: responsa are a normal thing in every world religion. But the idea that self-consistency happens when an ideology becomes mature doesn't seem especially borne out.)

freedomben 2y ago
I agree with you, but I think the parent idea still stands because most of the Abrahamic faiths are self-consistent when the interpreter is sufficiently liberal enough to explain away and reconcile contradictions (i.e. not take a strictly literal interpretation). For non-believers (I'm in that category) we see a load of inconsistencies. IMHO many of them are so clearly contradictory I wouldn't think there was even debate (i.e. which day did Jesus die? Was it on the day of Passover (Good Friday) as in the Gospel of Mark? Or was it just after noon on the day before the Passover meal is celebrated as in the Gospel of John?), but there is extensive literature written by people bending over backwards to reconcile these things. So, I think the Abrahamic faiths do follow the pattern of converging toward self-consistency.
- analog31 2y ago
  This is more along the lines of what I'm thinking, which is that the doctrines evolve to include a protective wrapper of auxiliary doctrines which answer the apologetic questions. I know someone who can rattle off answers to your questions, relative to his sect, though he's no longer a believer.
- vunderba 2y ago
  At least for me, I think most non-religious people have larger issues with the seeming ideological contradictions rather than historical ones. For example, many cases where God seems to approve of ethnic genocide, infanticide, etc., and yet one of the fundamental Ten Commandments is "thou shalt not commit murder".
- kcplate 2y ago
  Those are inconsistencies but are they reasonable inconsistencies when someone is memorializing an event a couple of decades prior? I think yes. Small inconsistencies like that don’t bother me. Eyewitnesses perspectives are often different even minutes after an event. Larger inconsistencies and contractions should be the focus and if you can articulate why those are significantly problematic to a belief system, a scholarly believer is more apt to listen. However if you come at them with “the problem with your belief system is because two people writing about an event mixed up what day it occurred on 20 years later…”, it’s really not impressive evidence to an important contradiction.
- wl 2y ago
  You're describing inconsistencies in the lore, not the ideology. Such inconsistencies in the lore can rise to inconsistencies in the ideology when part or all of the lore itself is held to be inerrant as part of the ideology, but this is not necessarily the case. The classic (and hardly the only) inconsistency in the ideology in Christianity is the lex talionis of Exodus 21 and Jesus' repudiation of it in the Sermon on the Mount.

freedomben 2y ago

I agree with you, but I think the parent idea still stands because most of the Abrahamic faiths are self-consistent when the interpreter is sufficiently liberal enough to explain away and reconcile contradictions (i.e. not take a strictly literal interpretation). For non-believers (I'm in that category) we see a load of inconsistencies. IMHO many of them are so clearly contradictory I wouldn't think there was even debate (i.e. which day did Jesus die? Was it on the day of Passover (Good Friday) as in the Gospel of Mark? Or was it just after noon on the day before the Passover meal is celebrated as in the Gospel of John?), but there is extensive literature written by people bending over backwards to reconcile these things. So, I think the Abrahamic faiths do follow the pattern of converging toward self-consistency.

analog31 2y ago
This is more along the lines of what I'm thinking, which is that the doctrines evolve to include a protective wrapper of auxiliary doctrines which answer the apologetic questions. I know someone who can rattle off answers to your questions, relative to his sect, though he's no longer a believer.
vunderba 2y ago
At least for me, I think most non-religious people have larger issues with the seeming ideological contradictions rather than historical ones. For example, many cases where God seems to approve of ethnic genocide, infanticide, etc., and yet one of the fundamental Ten Commandments is "thou shalt not commit murder".
kcplate 2y ago
Those are inconsistencies but are they reasonable inconsistencies when someone is memorializing an event a couple of decades prior? I think yes. Small inconsistencies like that don’t bother me. Eyewitnesses perspectives are often different even minutes after an event. Larger inconsistencies and contractions should be the focus and if you can articulate why those are significantly problematic to a belief system, a scholarly believer is more apt to listen. However if you come at them with “the problem with your belief system is because two people writing about an event mixed up what day it occurred on 20 years later…”, it’s really not impressive evidence to an important contradiction.
wl 2y ago
You're describing inconsistencies in the lore, not the ideology. Such inconsistencies in the lore can rise to inconsistencies in the ideology when part or all of the lore itself is held to be inerrant as part of the ideology, but this is not necessarily the case. The classic (and hardly the only) inconsistency in the ideology in Christianity is the lex talionis of Exodus 21 and Jesus' repudiation of it in the Sermon on the Mount.