Bible Contradictions?

From a I discussion with a guy name Michael on another thread:

There's a verse in Matthew where Jesus says the pharisees of this generation will have no sign but the sign of Jonah. The equivalent passage in Mark 6, which is set at the same time and place, as is clear from the context, says they will have no sign at all. 

John says Thomas was not present at the first meeting between the resurrected Jesus and the 1 other apostles. This contradicts other gopsels which say the 11 were present at the first meeting, after Jesus met Cleopas and Simon. The oldest manuscripts of Mark omit Mark 16:10-20, which has details added in later to reconcile Mark with Luke. Some manuscripts of Mark omit the word "twice" from the quote "before the rooster crows twice, you will have denied me three times" in order to force Mark to match up with the later gospels.

These are examples contradictions that never bother Christians but atheists seem to bring them up endlessly. It is important to understand what Catholics claim about scripture and what they don't. I know many atheists get much of their information from fundamentalist sources or even from anti-Christian writers. There are a bunch of things being said about the bible that don't hold up to scrutiny. Still we don't need to defend every claim about the bible. As a Catholic I just need to defend the claims the church makes. So what are those?

Essentially we believe scripture is written by human authors and inspired by the Holy Spirit. So the essence of what the Holy Spirit wants to communicate is presented without error but it does not mean no detail is ever incorrect. they are human stories as well. Human stories do get details wrong. Even the mistakes can be guided by the Holy Spirit to bring out deeper truths. The statement about 11 apostles could be pointing out the felt absence of Judas even though Thomas was also missing his absence was not felt the same way. 

The fact that Catholics don't believe in the bible alone does become relevant here. This notion of biblical inspiration does leave more room for interpretation than some more literal notions. We believe that God guides our interpretations through sacred tradition and the leadership of the church. That means this does not make the bible wishy-washy. So, for example, you can't say the virgin birth might be a details that the biblical authors got wrong. No. Tradition says they did not.

Discomfort

I am reading an interesting book. It is called The Beauty of Discomfort by Amanda Lang. People who watch CBC News will know her because she is on there a fair bit. It is an interesting book because she arrives at many of the same conclusions Christian writers arrive at, but does it in a very secular way. That is she looks at a society where people don't deny themselves any pleasure and they are not expected to walk through any pain and actually asks if this is a good idea. This is especially true of how we raise our children. Do we raise them too soft? We don't discipline them. We protect them from any potentially hurtful comment. Then we wonder why so many are unable or unwilling to overcome obstacles and really accomplish something in life. They just are not ready for the tears.

It goes further. It even tackles question like personal addictions from a discomfort point of view. Trying to look at that moment of temptation where you want but you know you should not. How can we do what we should do and not what our subconscious passions drive us to do? Interesting stuff. Many of the things she says echo what is in scripture and Christian spiritual writers. Yet she goes to science to justify it. For me it confirms with science much of what people of faith knew for a long time. Yet coming at it from another angle gives you a fuller picture. 

One big piece that is missing is grace. It is not explicitly stated that you cannot gain victory over sin by self effort. In fact, human effort seems like all she considers.Yet there are openings made to let God work. Without explicitly using God's name meditation could still become a form of prayer opening us up to God's grace. I know many people who came to Christianity through the 12 steps of AA. They say they experienced God's grace as a higher power before they came to know that Jesus is that higher power and all the 12 steps can be found in the bible. There is even the notion of Anonymous Christianity where people never take that second step of realizing it was Jesus who saved them yet they cooperate with His grace and are saved. 

What bothered me more about the book is the way it avoids the question of why. Why do we choose pain over pleasure? Not even why do we but why should we. She points out that sometimes it makes us happy. Sometimes great human achievements are made and great good is done. That is a good point. You can multiply examples of that. Yet the stories of these great people are the exception. They are not the rule. There is no guarantee that even in the long run the good will outweigh the bad. Actually many who do something great and arrive at a position of great comfort immediately embrace a new challenge that involves more discomfort. So they never win from a simple pain and pleasure perspective. 

This is OK for a Christian because we know why we are pursuing virtue. We want to glorify God in this life and continue on the road heaven to get ourselves there and lead others there. That is what gives life meaning. If we know it is the path of holiness God has set for us then any discomfort makes sense because the goodness of God is just that good. 

She tackles the question of meaning in the last chapter and it is fairly lame. She tells the story of Maher Arar which is a very compelling story. Still what does it have to do with meaning? It is just that eventually his sufferings led to some good. OK, that might happen. But many are tortured like Arar and do not see their stories effect any change. One might even argue that Arar's story has not changed much. 

It is unclear what is meant by "good." Is it just that there will be less pain and more pleasure for others in the future? If that is all it is then the argument contradicts itself. The whole thesis of the book is that comfort is not the highest good. It needs to serve some greater good. Yet what is that greater good? She won't go there. 

It seems to me that you need to start there. To know what is good enough to make you sacrifice your comfort. It should be good enough not just in the scenario where you end up changing the world because the odds of that are long. It should be good enough even if you fail by secular standards. That doing the right thing matters even when no human reason seems evident. But then you need some way to know it is right. Even if you do change the world how do you know you are changing it for good and not for ill? If you don't have clear answers to those questions it seems like facing the hard days of discomfort would be impossible.