Why Do We Trust Ancient Texts as Accurate?

[BigJoeNobody]

And this is another standard response of attempting to explain the evils in the world. Somehow, in some way the people who suffer are beneficial to God's Great Plan, and we are too small to understand the why. My reply would be very similar to the one I just posted for Steve.



Yes, I agree this is a thorny knot indeed. And we here certainly won't make a dent in the challenge to explain it all. For me, the standard pat answers seem just that to me. Pat answers to try to comprehend what is not really possible to comprehend.

I'd think the key issue is that one must first accept that there is a meaning to this life, for that, we would have to do away with the standard Scientific model of existence of chance and eternity of non control. I think I gather from other posts this one might be difficult for many here. Once you have a purpose you can begin to analyze why and how such suffering is beneficial/earned/punishment/etc. Without this however, A child dies in an earthquake, Absolute tragedy with no reason or benefit. He essentially dies for nothing, and in the great scheme of things means nothing to anyone outside of immediate family and possibly friends, all of whom will probably move on from their grief eventually. If we take a step back and reanalyze it from a Theistic (Christian/Islamic POV) standpoint. The child was saved from a lifetime of suffering. He was also spared the test of faith due his young age not being developed enough to be held accountable. Of course this means that people who do live longer are essentially taking a harder test, but from an Islamic standpoint we realize Allah doesn't give us more than we can handle, therefore your bad ideas you blame on God's harshness, are nothing more than your unwillingness to see that he had a reason, and that everything can be ok.

 

[wil]

The child was saved from a lifetime of suffering. He was also spared the test of faith due his young age not being developed enough to be held accountable

Yup, sorry but that sounds like a heckuva bill of goods you've bought there.

 

[Thomas]

If we take a step back and reanalyze it from a Theistic (Christian/Islamic POV) standpoint. The child was saved from a lifetime of suffering. He was also spared the test of faith due his young age not being developed enough to be held accountable.

I'm afraid that's not the reading from the Christian POV, so please do not include us in that.

I know some might point out Augustine's view of the damnation of unbaptised children might suggest the contrary, but I disagree with the African Doctor on that point ...

 

[BigJoeNobody]

I'm afraid that's not the reading from the Christian POV, so please do not include us in that.

how so? are you saying that Christian doctrine is not that this life is merely a test? Or that a Child dying can actually be a benefit in itself due to the lack of hardship he/she will have to endure to prove his faith to God?

I know some might point out Augustine's view of the damnation of unbaptised children might suggest the contrary, but I disagree with the African Doctor on that point ...

I have known people who say that if one is not Baptised they are directly going to hell. Which is why some denominations baptise at birth. I personally don't think the child who dies before the age of understanding is doomed, but that's just the Islamic perspective. Although I met many a preacher who preached the same thing when I was Christian. And many who taught the contrary.

 

[Stevegp]

Yes I've heard this argument before, of course. And obviously I cannot prove you right or wrong. It is one way to look at it that seems to justify all the evil done by humans down thru the millennium. It doesn't cut the mustard for me cause the man that is burned alive because of <fill in the blank> suffers no less because he is giving the Creator an experience. And he certainly doesn't even know that is why he is dying in agony.

Right, there are all sorts of examples one might pose that still seem to make God callous towards suffering. However, in an aspect monism ontology it is actually God who is doing the suffering in an aspect of God that we call us. And God in that burning man's aspect might not even know about its meaning either. As I said before, it's a tough issue. So, what does it mean to live? One way to look at it is constrained being. To live is to be limited. This includes limitations on what can happen and what can be known. But in life there can also be a nobility. A struggling to find meaning, and to live a noble and moral life in the face of all those constraints. We see this all the time where people who experience terrible trajectories still hold on to their belief that there is some ultimate meaning to life even in the face of these evils. What this means is that there is something deep and important about living. And also that there is a religious sensibility that can in it's limited fashion plumb the depths of this meaning, reach out to know it and embrace it. Paul Tillich called this depth "the dimension of depth". It represents the divine depth in all things -- meaning, value, freedom, relatedness, etc. It is something that humans throughout the ages have attempted to fathom in their rituals, meditations, thoughts and actions.

What this means is that in an aspect monism, is that God chose to have a part of the Godself participate in this constrained being. If each person is an aspect of the divine life, then in that life there is a dimension of depth that they can struggle to know God in God's depth and embrace it. This is similar to the idea of kenosis in Christology. The emptying of divinity to live.

Now, I don't know why God would chose to do this, to empty God's self to live. But apparently is was important. And I think we sense that life, as it is, is important. And it is worth the risks that it entails. Perhaps, no one knows this better than the soldier who puts their life on the line for something they feel is much more important than their own life or well being. It is because of this sense that there is some ultimate meaning to life, that a person can try, with the constrains, to fathom what it's all about and try to embrace that meaning no matter what happens.

 

[Stevegp]

I can see you an I see life a bit differently. We come to somewhat similar conclusions on the question posed by DA, but you seem very detached from an idea centered around the "Life Test" paradigm.

Yes I reject the "Test" paradigm. Is life a test to see who is worthy of eternal bliss or the end of suffering? It seems a bit too judicial to me. I think it stems from an innate sense that there must be some justice for the evils in life. Not a bad sense, but is it the fundamental meaning for life? I don't think so.

There is a common thread in the traditions of world rejection (i.e. that there is something wrong with reality as it is) and somehow there needs to be a "fix". I don't agree with this. Of course, the common rationale is that reality, as it is, is to "test" us so that when worthy we can move on to a better reality or non-existence. But what would that reality look like? Extinguishing the cycle of life (a flight from pain?) seems a bit pointless to me but neither does some bliss where there are no challenges, no failures, no attainment, no strivings, no risk, no growth. What would that be like? Is it something to be desired?

 

[Stevegp]

It is impossible for me to accept that in order for there to be life, there must be evil.

So the question would be, how would that work? The very same forces that create the wonders of life also create the evils. The very same forces that bring the life giving rain also bring the tsunamis that kill thousands. The same forces that cause new muscle to build as other muscle is damaged, also create cancer. The growth of new ideas comes from the destruction or modification of the old. The list can go on and on.

 

[Thomas]

... are you saying that Christian doctrine is not that this life is merely a test?

Yes. Life is life. It's not a test. If you think it's a test, then you don't really value life, I would have thought.

Or that a Child dying can actually be a benefit in itself due to the lack of hardship he/she will have to endure to prove his faith to God?

I don't believe one has to prove one's faith to God.

This strikes me as a very negative attitude to life.

I have known people who say that if one is not Baptised they are directly going to hell. Which is why some denominations baptise at birth. I personally don't think the child who dies before the age of understanding is doomed, but that's just the Islamic perspective. Although I met many a preacher who preached the same thing when I was Christian. And many who taught the contrary.[/QUOTE]

 

[Devils' Advocate]

So the question would be, how would that work? The very same forces that create the wonders of life also create the evils. The very same forces that bring the life giving rain also bring the tsunamis that kill thousands. The same forces that cause new muscle to build as other muscle is damaged, also create cancer. The growth of new ideas comes from the destruction or modification of the old. The list can go on and on.

Methinks you have changed direction here. I was talking about willful actions by the animals versus the humans on the planet. You have switched the topic to natural disasters. And that is another angle worth discussing - it isn't the angle we were discussing.

By the way, I enjoy the way you phrase your posts. I hope you will hang around for a while!

 

[BigJoeNobody]

I don't believe one has to prove one's faith to God.

So under Christian Doctrine would you say all people regardless of faith are bound for heaven? If this life is not a test, and one doesn't need to prove his faith, then by what measure do people attain heaven? I'm pretty sure you aren't of a group who denies heaven as a destination, I guess hell could be argued, but largely is accepted in Christianity and Islam.

Yes I reject the "Test" paradigm. Is life a test to see who is worthy of eternal bliss or the end of suffering? It seems a bit too judicial to me. I think it stems from an innate sense that there must be some justice for the evils in life. Not a bad sense, but is it the fundamental meaning for life? I don't think so.

As always you are free to believe what you want, but If this life is not a test, what would you say it is? Or is there a meaning to life in your idea. Or are you more of the Atheistic Philosophy type? (asking as to make better understanding)

 

[Thomas]

So under Christian Doctrine would you say all people regardless of faith are bound for heaven?

I would hope so, yes.

If this life is not a test, and one doesn't need to prove his faith, then by what measure do people attain heaven?

The command to love God and love one's neighbour is not the key to pass a test, it's something we should do because we want to, not because it's required. If we think it's required, we've failed. If you love because you've been told to, it's not love, it's fear.

Same with God. I agree with many critics of religion that too often religions teach people to fear God, or love God out of fear of what will happen if they don't love God. It's so wrong I can't begin to express how wrong that is – It makes God out to be a despot, a tyrant.

I'm pretty sure you aren't of a group who denies heaven as a destination, I guess hell could be argued, but largely is accepted in Christianity and Islam.

I would say heaven is open to anyone who honestly wants it, and equally hell is open to anyone who wants it – God allows us the choice, after all.

Here we usually get into clever, sophistry, but it's really quite simple – it's the heart that counts – not clever argument.

As always you are free to believe what you want, but If this life is not a test, what would you say it is?

A gift? A theophany? A wonder? When you get to God, are you going to complain about what a shit test life is? Why does God test, doesn't He know?

Or is there a meaning to life in your idea.

Yes. Every day I try and make someone smile.

 

[wil]

The whole concept that God made man to test him....to me is ludicrous and doesn't say much for God..

 

[Stevegp]

Methinks you have changed direction here. I was talking about willful actions by the animals versus the humans on the planet. You have switched the topic to natural disasters. And that is another angle worth discussing - it isn't the angle we were discussing.

Evil is a label we apply based on moral sensibilities. To me the goal is to ground it in the divine morality. Evil comes in many forms and in many cases is a very subtle distinction, whether it be attributed to animals, humans, or natural acts.

By the way, I enjoy the way you phrase your posts. I hope you will hang around for a while!

Thanks.

 

[Stevegp]

As always you are free to believe what you want, but If this life is not a test, what would you say it is? Or is there a meaning to life in your idea. Or are you more of the Atheistic Philosophy type? (asking as to make better understanding)

What the meaning of life is, is a difficult question. It has been pondered for millennia. Good resources in a search for an answer might be found in all the wisdom literature, philosophy, art, music and dialog. Although I don't pretend to know the complete answer to that question, it seems to me that the meaning of life is first to embrace life as it is. And not just any type of life, but one that is congruent with a life the divine in it's depth wishes for all, including God's own life. This type of life is an eternal struggle to instantiate what is best in the depth of all of us and nature. I think the most meaningful life is one that takes up that struggle with vigor to create better selves and a better world.

And no, I'm not an atheist. I consider myself a non-traditional theist. While I appreciate what the traditions have to offer as a revelatory resource (just as anything can be), I find that much that is in them is not compelling to me. I studied theology for two years but eventually decided Christianity was not for me. However, I did continue to study and over some years developed a theology that I feel comfortable with, given both my religious intuitions and my science/engineering background. If anyone is interested, I have a summary of it on the web. It's called The Divine Life Communion. I wrote a lot about it on a blog that shut down a while back so I'm now in the process of rewriting and adding some of that detail to the website.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

What the meaning of life is, is a difficult question. It has been pondered for millennia. Good resources in a search for an answer might be found in all the wisdom literature, philosophy, art, music and dialog. Although I don't pretend to know the complete answer to that question, it seems to me that the meaning of life is first to embrace life as it is. And not just any type of life, but one that is congruent with a life the divine in it's depth wishes for all,

It's true throughout History many philosophers, and artists of many different field have contemplated many "What If's". Usually most who believe in a Divine and a afterlife have, as a matter of "Best guess", chosen a test for earning a good afterlife. Although this is not completely agreed upon as Thomas has explained. It is largely up to the individual in most religions/worldviews to decide what is the purpose of this life. The Quran tells us (Muslims) directly,

[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed - and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving -

67:2

Now one can go further and read more for the understanding as to why Allah does this, and largely can be debated, but it (for Most Muslims) is irrelevant. He says it is a test, we accept it with whatever justification. It is a moot point the "Why"

I'm going to go to Thomas and wil's posts now to explain as I feel this can all go together.

The command to love God and love one's neighbour is not the key to pass a test, it's something we should do because we want to, not because it's required. If we think it's required, we've failed. If you love because you've been told to, it's not love, it's fear.

Deut 6:24 - So the LORD commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God for our good always and for our survival, as it is today.

Psalms 112:1 - Praise the LORD! How blessed is the man who fears the LORD, Who greatly delights in His commandments

Prov 19:28 - The fear of the LORD leads to life, So that one may sleep satisfied, untouched by evil.

Luke 1:50 - AND HIS MERCY IS UPON GENERATION AFTER GENERATION TOWARD THOSE WHO FEAR HIM.

Amongst many others. Fearing our Lord, The Creator, is by far one of the most repeated commands given in the Bible. It talks of the benefits and blessings that come from it. Following his commands is another key to many verses about righteousness. How can one discount these and say that everyone can choose where they go heaven or hell. I doubt anyone would willingly choose hell if given the choice, certainly not in the Islamic view of it.

I'm not trying to knock your beliefs, but I would like to know how what you said, along with your statement that the Bible is uncorrupted, etc. how you reach such a conclusion that fearing God means you aren't Loving him.

Same with God. I agree with many critics of religion that too often religions teach people to fear God, or love God out of fear of what will happen if they don't love God. It's so wrong I can't begin to express how wrong that is – It makes God out to be a despot, a tyrant.

The whole concept that God made man to test him....to me is ludicrous and doesn't say much for God..

To me both of these go together. And they feed the presumptions Thomas refers to here:

I would say heaven is open to anyone who honestly wants it, and equally hell is open to anyone who wants it – God allows us the choice, after all.

Here we usually get into clever, sophistry, but it's really quite simple – it's the heart that counts – not clever argument.

Essentially saying that If one truly wants heaven one can have it, or Hell if they choose it without an indicator of what one will choose, seems like not a choice at all. I will agree that it is a choice. it is reflected in Islamic teachings. But the choice isn't once you are on the path. It is what you do up until you die that defines your choice. In Islam if one truly wants to go to heaven, one must show it, and that action will resonate with your soul. In Islam showing it involves practicing and loving as commanded. If you follow those rules, you can achieve heaven. Simple. If you choose not to follow his commands you have chosen hell. In Islam however we also distinguish in what one knows. If someone were a Christian, because Allah hadn't brought the Quran to their hearts, then they will be judged based on the information they have. Now in the large opinion of Scholars this doesn't mean most Christians will go to heaven, but rather that some will. Those who follow what the word teaches, not what men teach. Those who do as the word has commanded and avoid what was to to be avoided. (I'm hoping I am remaining clear). The test isn't about if one is worthy, (and I apologize if the word doesn't suit the purpose) but rather what they choose, by acting in a way that would make one worthy (to the best of their ability). Allah (god) is not a Tyrant, he is a loving God, who allows all men and women to make their choices in this life..

Evil is a label we apply based on moral sensibilities. To me the goal is to ground it in the divine morality. Evil comes in many forms and in many cases is a very subtle distinction, whether it be attributed to animals, humans, or natural acts.

I think I disagree with your definition of evil, but then again I use the Biblical/Quranic definition. One who is doing that which is forbidden are Evil people. The acts that are forbidden are evil. in other words anything detracting from what is good is evil.

including God's own life.

God is not "alive" for if that were true he would have to have been born or created or at any measure had a beginning.

This type of life is an eternal struggle to instantiate what is best in the depth of all of us and nature. I think the most meaningful life is one that takes up that struggle with vigor to create better selves and a better world.

And who would be better to explain the proper way to do that than the creator himself. Jihad, as we call it, is a struggle to do that which Allah has ordained for us to do. Whether that be protecting our fellow man, Suffering so that an innocent person can walk free, or even doing jobs like farming where you are simply striving to get enough money to get by on.

And no, I'm not an atheist. I consider myself a non-traditional theist.

I was a "Biblical Christian" for a while, and this sounds much like that, except I'm guessing you pull from other religious texts and practices as well?

While I appreciate what the traditions have to offer as a revelatory resource (just as anything can be), I find that much that is in them is not compelling to me.

Understood. It didn't resonate, or it didn't resonate "enough".

I studied theology for two years but eventually decided Christianity was not for me. However, I did continue to study and over some years developed a theology that I feel comfortable with, given both my religious intuitions and my science/engineering background.

I can't begin to guess how many similar stories I've heard like this. Joshua Evans' story (if you can find the long version and not the hurried talk through) is quite crazy, along with Dr. Jerald Dirks. But there are just as many "Nones" out there.

However, I did continue to study and over some years developed a theology that I feel comfortable with, given both my religious intuitions and my science/engineering background. If anyone is interested, I have a summary of it on the web. It's called The Divine Life Communion. I wrote a lot about it on a blog that shut down a while back so I'm now in the process of rewriting and adding some of that detail to the website.

I read over a bit, hopefully I have some time later, I seem to never have enough.

 

[Thomas]

Amongst many others. Fearing our Lord, The Creator, is by far one of the most repeated commands given in the Bible. It talks of the benefits and blessings that come from it.

Yes, but make sure you read 'fear' according to the ancient meaning of the term, and not the modern. Hebrew and Greek words have several shades of meaning, but in the context of the fear of the Lord, they convey a positive reverence. Even in modern parlance, there is a 'healthy fear' which means you're not glib or careless. It doesn't mean be frightened. "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom' as the Scripture goes, but 'frightened fear' rarely produces anything coherent, let alone wise.One should fear the Lord in the same way the sailor fears the sea ...

“The fear of God is an attitude of respect, a response of reverence and wonder. It is the only appropriate response to our Creator and Redeemer” (Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible, 1997, note on Psalm 128:1).

I doubt anyone would willingly choose hell if given the choice, certainly not in the Islamic view of it.

Quite.

I'm not trying to knock your beliefs, but I would like to know how what you said, along with your statement that the Bible is uncorrupted, etc. how you reach such a conclusion that fearing God means you aren't Loving him.

Love opens, fear closes ... when Adam and Eve sinned, they knew they had, and their immediate response was shame, and they hid, so that when the scribe said 'God looked ', remember the scribe knows that God is everywhere, and that God doesn't 'go looking'.

To me both of these go together. And they feed the presumptions Thomas refers to here:

Allah (god) is not a Tyrant, he is a loving God, who allows all men and women to make their choices in this life..

I agree. Furthermore I'd say in any religion there are those who "... honour me with their lips: but their heart is far from me" (Matthew 15:8), and there are those who honour with the heart, who have never heard of Moses, Christ or Mohammed, but who God holds dear, and holds close.

Religions preach love, but man is quicker to condemn than he is to love.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

One should fear the Lord in the same way the sailor fears the sea

I like that saying. and it holds close to what I meant. Realizing that he has the Capacity to harm you without a tiny measure of recourse is important in realizing his greatness. He doesn't destroy you, even upon death we are promised an eternity.

Love opens, fear closes ...

I disagree, from an Islamic standpoint outright fear also means the person acknowledges his greatness, and believes in him strongly enough to do as he wishes so as to avoid the Hellfire. This fear is a type of love, respect. Much like many of us feared our fathers capacity to knock us out, but loved him as well.

remember the scribe knows that God is everywhere

I must point out that you are assuming the scribe to know that. That's the problem with non-literal examination. One must assume what a person he never met meant when he said something in a language that has been gone for thousands of years through various tellers in other languages. I'm not knocking you analysis, just saying that it is a slippery slope if one allows it too freely.

Religions preach love, but man is quicker to condemn than he is to love.

sad thought.

 

[Thomas]

I like that saying. and it holds close to what I meant. Realizing that he has the Capacity to harm you without a tiny measure of recourse is important in realizing his greatness.

Nope, that's not it at all. God wills no harm on His creation, why would He? Where there's harm, it's self-harm.

He doesn't destroy you, even upon death we are promised an eternity.

The religions tend to say either an eternity of heaven or an eternity of hell. We offer an intermediate state, purgatory, although I hold that as being 'momentary', bearing in mind that both 'eternity' and 'momentary' are time-based notions, and we're talking about the timeless.

But both conditions are analogies. I doubt God ever spent time inventing entertaining ways of reward and punishment. I don't see the eschaton as sitting on clouds playing harps, or basking in the company of 72 virgins.

I disagree, from an Islamic standpoint outright fear also means the person acknowledges his greatness, and believes in him strongly enough to do as he wishes so as to avoid the Hellfire.

Ah, that's where we differ. From a Christian standpoint we believe He wants us to be with Him. Love is wanting to be with someone because one wants to be with someone, not because one wants to avoid something unpleasant.

I'll agree we bang on about sin, fear of hell, divine retribution, etc., etc ... but that's our failing, not His message ...

Much like many of us feared our fathers capacity to knock us out, but loved him as well.

I hear you, but I honestly think that's a significant part of the problem of the misunderstanding of the authority of God. Our fathers' capacity to knock us out is a failing, and we put that failing upon God. God does not have the defects of our fathers. That capacity to knock us out is an abuse of authority. True leadership is about instilling the desire to be with, to want to follow, not instilling the notion that if you don't follow you'' be punished.

You might as well give God a whip. I understand Islam is about submission, but it's not slavery.

I must point out that you are assuming the scribe to know that.

Well I'm assuming the scribe understands something about the Divine nature, and that those who read the scribe saw the wisdom which is why it's in the Canon. And I'm reading a particular text in the context of the whole message. So where there's a contradiction, I contemplate the text, never ruling out that the scribe might be a tad more clever than I am.

That's the problem with non-literal examination.

Actually I think it's a problem of hyper-literal examination. People read the text and jump to conclusions, rather than think about it. So where they see a contradiction they go, 'Ah, see, a contradiction, it must be wrong!' – never crosses their minds that maybe they're being a bit slow or shallow ... Many of the secular critiques of God, the God of vengeance, etc, God who is cruel, tyrannical, etc., is due to this kind of literalism, and I've seen very intelligent people do it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The whole concept that God made man to test him....to me is ludicrous and doesn't say much for God.

Not much different from a God who consider that all are born in sin.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

God wills no harm on His creation, why would He?

Sodom, Gahmorra, The Ark, Flood (Noah (PBUH)), Plague of Egypt, and several others might beg to differ. now your next quote,

Where there's harm, it's self-harm.

might be the answer, but in a liberal way of thinking. They brought it on themselves, yes. But God presented the calamities.

The religions tend to say either an eternity of heaven or an eternity of hell. We offer an intermediate state, purgatory, although I hold that as being 'momentary', bearing in mind that both 'eternity' and 'momentary' are time-based notions, and we're talking about the timeless.

yes, Obviously I don't hold to a purgatory, and as a Muslim, I would have to say we think you all misunderstood what was meant, but let's not go into that ATM, as it is irrelevant.

But both conditions are analogies. I doubt God ever spent time inventing entertaining ways of reward and punishment. I don't see the eschaton as sitting on clouds playing harps, or basking in the company of 72 virgins.

The Quran is quite explicit in its description of Heaven (Jannah). I agree he didn't "spend time" only because he transcends time. There is definitely a reward. Some parts are revealed in his revelations, some are yet to be told. In any event I feel we are getting way off topic.

Ah, that's where we differ. From a Christian standpoint we believe He wants us to be with Him. Love is wanting to be with someone because one wants to be with someone, not because one wants to avoid something unpleasant.

I don't feel the 2 as mutually exclusive. Again, difference of ideas, I guess we'll all find out one day.

Our fathers' capacity to knock us out is a failing

why? why do you consider strength of arm a failing. or the act of discipline a failing?

That capacity to knock us out is an abuse of authority.

Not unless it is undeserved. An authority of good judiciousness wouldn't cause harm to those who didn't deserve it, but to those who did, they would receive it. There is no good in letting a mass murderer free out of pity. it just doesn't work. A judge must be willing to help those that deserve it, and punish those who transgress the limits.

Furthermore, I'd have to state the Capacity to do such, but not doing it, is mercy. If he didn't have the Capacity to do it, is it mercy or incompetence? I would never accuse the creator of incompetence.

True leadership is about instilling the desire to be with, to want to follow, not instilling the notion that if you don't follow you'' be punished.

again both of these notions could be true though. Giving you a reason to follow, and a reason to not disobey.

You might as well give God a whip. I understand Islam is about submission, but it's not slavery.

Are we not all slaves to the master of all? Are we not all powerless against him? If his will is one thing, do we possess the ability to stop it from happening (can we stop the end of days? for example) We are all his slaves, but we have the ability to submit to him or not through free will.

Well I'm assuming the scribe understands something about the Divine nature, and that those who read the scribe saw the wisdom which is why it's in the Canon. And I'm reading a particular text in the context of the whole message. So where there's a contradiction, I contemplate the text, never ruling out that the scribe might be a tad more clever than I am.

it is still an assumption. Then there is always the possibility the "clever Language" you are analyzing isn't a perfect translation of the original text. (not starting the corrupted text debate again, but rather pointing out it is a translation.)

Actually I think it's a problem of hyper-literal examination. People read the text and jump to conclusions, rather than think about it. So where they see a contradiction they go, 'Ah, see, a contradiction, it must be wrong!' – never crosses their minds that maybe they're being a bit slow or shallow ... Many of the secular critiques of God, the God of vengeance, etc, God who is cruel, tyrannical, etc., is due to this kind of literalism, and I've seen very intelligent people do it.

I'm not going to argue that there aren't times people are too quick to call for a contradiction. Many a "youtube scholars" of Islam claim to have contradictions which are proven false within the same Aya they quote from. But I still find that when a text cannot be read literally, it opens too many doors for misinterpretation. A strong text would be both literally and metaphorically accurate. Where one could analyze the deeper meanings, and still not find contradictions or errors. At the same time the Literal aspect is easily navigated and understood. Otherwise it's like God is hiding his message from those who aren't strong minded (I'm talking about good people who may just not be that smart to pick up on the subtleties.