Paradox of Truth: How Christian Dualism Contradicts Itself
A Non-Dual Perspective
I love playing with dualities and playing the scapegoat-redeemer against the Literalist Christians and other people who use it. This is not just exclusive to certain Christian beliefs. What I though do is, that I am using their own beliefs against them to play the split between scapegoat and redeemer against itself. Same with judgement and mercy/compassion. I keep playing them against each other. And they can not weasel their way out of it. As it is a contradiction they can not solve. Doing so would mean refuting their own beliefs. As the only way is to go non-dual.
Scapegoat and Redeemer roles
In traditional Christian theology, Jesus is often seen as both the scapegoat (taking on the sins of the world) and the redeemer (saving humanity through that very act). This creates an inherent paradox, the idea of redemption through sacrifice itself raises questions about justice, mercy, and the nature of sin. When I highlight this internal contradiction, I am forcing those who believe in these dualities to confront how the logic of scapegoating directly ties into redemption, yet both are in conflict with each other at a deeper level.
Scapegoat: A person or group is unfairly blamed for the sins or wrongdoings of others.
Redeemer: A person or group is said to restore or save others, often through sacrifice.
By forcing them to look at this duality, it asks them to reconcile opposites that can’t be purely separated, revealing that neither concept can fully function without the other and yet they contradict one another at their core. Another common duality in Christian theology is judgment versus mercy/compassion. The Bible speaks of God as a righteous judge, but also as a God of love and mercy. When I draw attention to this tension, I am once again forcing them to confront an irreconcilable split within their own theology:
Judgment: The act of assessing and condemning wrongdoing, often with a final, unforgiving stance.
Mercy/Compassion: The willingness to forgive, show kindness, and understand the imperfection of others.
If judgment is absolute, it invalidates mercy, because no room is left for forgiveness. On the other hand, if mercy is absolute, judgment becomes meaningless because there's no need to make distinctions between right and wrong. By playing these two against each other, I am exposing a fundamental tension in their worldview.
For someone who sees themselves as the redeemer (the one who offers salvation), to scapegoat others creates an inherent contradiction. If they are the redeemer, offering forgiveness, grace, and redemption, how can they simultaneously condemn others for their sins? The redeeming figure is meant to offer grace, while the scapegoating figure requires punishment and blame. When the redeemer figure scapegoats others, it reveals that their mercy is selective, often tied to a judgmental stance. It suggests that their "mercy" is conditional, and only those they deem worthy are eligible for redemption. Scapegoating serves as a way to maintain purity, it’s an attempt to protect oneself from the shadow or the dark aspects of their own being. By placing blame on others, they can distance themselves from any potential faults and reinforce their own moral superiority. However this becomes a logical paradox: they cannot be both the redeemer and the scapegoater/accuser at the same time. The redeemer’s role would be to accept the sins of others without judgment, while the scapegoater is the one who unjustly blames and cast aside others.
Claims of Exclusivity on Truth
Similarly, if they claim that truth is solely contained within the Bible, they are forced into an untenable position. The Bible itself suggests that truth exists outside of it—in nature, in creation, and in human experience (Romans 1:20, Proverbs 2:6, etc.). To hold that truth is exclusively in the Bible means to deny the entirety of creation as a reflection of divine truth. This creates a self-contradiction, because it implies that God’s truth only existed after the Bible was written, which, according to Christian doctrine, directly contradicts the idea that God is eternal and beyond creation. As the bible is written by people, and at some point there was no bible written yet. Does this not mean that Truth is not in itself tied to scripture? Not stating that the scripture is thus false. Just stating that this means Truth is something external from the scripture. Not bound by it. If truth existed before the Bible, then truth is not confined to the scripture itself but is something eternal, outside of human-made texts. As saying it would be, is stating that God did not exist before the bible.
So if so then Truth can not be claimed as only in the scripture. It exists external from it. Claiming Truth being only there in the scripture is saying the entire world is false, and only the book is right. So is God only in the book then? If so then this would contradict everything your book says. Hence Truth would not be exclusive to scripture alone. Saying that only your scripture is correct and everything else is false, is to say all of creation is false, when we can see clearly see Truth in everything. If truth is tied only to the Bible, it essentially makes God's existence dependent on scripture, which goes against the very idea of God being eternal and beyond any human creation.
The Logical Paradox
This creates a logical paradox, if God and truth are only found in the Bible, then we must ask, what was God before the Bible was written? According to the Christian faith, God exists eternally, and thus truth must exist independently of the Bible, or else they are effectively suggesting that God didn’t exist before the Bible, which is illogical according to their own faith. To say that only the Bible is true and everything else is false denies the validity of all of creation as a source of truth. The Bible teaches that God is present in all of creation and that truth can be known through multiple ways such as through the creation itself (Romans 1:20), through wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 2:6), and through human experience (John 1:9). To claim that only the Bible is truth contradicts the message of the Bible itself, which says that God's presence and truth are evident throughout all of creation. So any claims of exclusivity of Truth are untenable.
In their dualism, they’re forced to oversimplify everything into black-and-white categories. But reality is far more complex and integrated, and when you expose the contradictions in their logic, it forces them to either accept the contradictions or abandon their dualism. Neither option allows them to maintain a consistent and coherent position. If they deny the contradictions, they are living in self-deception; if they confront them directly, they must abandon the dualistic paradigm altogether. It creates a logically irrefutable trap within the dualistic, literalist Christian framework, and that’s why they can’t win. Whether they try to defend their position by invoking more scripture or theological reasoning, the contradictions still stand, they cannot reconcile their role as redeemer with scapegoating actions, nor can they claim truth exists only in the Bible without denying God's eternal nature.