The Bible is a very badly written book. Among many other flaws, it’s full of unintentional non sequiturs. It says things that have no logical connection to what came before, or that don’t make sense given what was just said. I’ve written about those before.

But there’s a worse kind of non sequitur in the Bible as well. Besides all those sudden little shifts in topic, the Bible also makes a lot of failed attempts at reasoning. It arrives at conclusions that are not justified by the reasons given. And it gives reasons for doing things, that aren’t actually reasons to do those things.

Pre-settlement stories

Job describes how the wicked are incredibly prosperous all their lives. And he says their prosperity is not in their own hands. So I guess he’s saying it’s God who is making them prosperous. Then Job concludes that he doesn’t want anything to do with the wicked. Which would normally make sense, but not so much after everything he just said.

Why doesn’t Job want to join them and prosper, with God’s blessing? Or even if he’s not saying God is actively rewarding the wicked, he is still saying there’s no connection between what you do and what happens to you. That is not a reason to avoid wickedness.

One of Job’s “friends” disagrees with some of the things Job said: Eliphaz claims that Job is wicked, and that the wicked don’t prosper. But then Eliphaz contradicts himself and says God makes the wicked prosper. And he too somehow concludes that he wants to stay away from those prosperous people.

Then some guy named Elihu comes out of nowhere and talks quite a lot. But nobody ever acknowledges he’s there, and even he can’t remember what point he’s trying to make. Elihu says God is perfectly just and never does anything wrong. Then for some reason he starts questioning how God got put in charge of the world. And bringing up the possibility that God could kill everyone. I’m not sure how any of that is supposed to support what he was saying about God being good.

God tells Abraham that four generations later, his descendants will come and live where he is now. And he says that will happen because… the Amorites aren’t yet as sinful as they’re going to be? What does that have to do with anything?

God tells Laban not to say anything to Jacob, and that’s why Laban TELLS Jacob he won’t harm him.

When Rachel gives birth to her last son, the midwife tells her she has a son now. Therefore, Rachel shouldn’t care that she’s dying.

Joseph needs a way to convince the Pharaoh to let Joseph’s family live in Egypt even though Egyptians hate shepherds. So Joseph advises his brothers to tell Pharaoh that they tend livestock for a living. How is that supposed to help? If anything, bringing up livestock should make Pharaoh want to know just what kind of livestock they intend to bring into his country…

Another Pharaoh apparently objects to Moses stopping the Israelites from working because… they’re numerous? So if there weren’t so many of them, then would this Pharaoh be okay with his slaves not working? Why is he bringing up the fact that they’re numerous?

Moses agrees to get God to remove a plague he had sent, and to do it on the day Pharaoh chooses. Because Moses thinks that will prove that there is no one like God. It won’t. At best, that might prove something about God, but it wouldn’t prove anything about anyone else. God being able to do that is perfectly compatible with other people being able to do it too.

God thinks he can teach people that “man does not live on bread alone”… by feeding them bread. (And then when Jesus quotes what God said about that, he acts like it was a command not to eat bread, or something.)

God makes sure his people understand that he thinks they’re evil. And he says he doesn’t want those other evil people living in the land, because they’re evil! Evil people don’t deserve to live in that land. And that’s why God is going to get rid of them, and give the land to these evil people instead.

Moses expects the other nations to rejoice because God is going to take vengeance on behalf of his own people. That is not a reason for the other nations to rejoice.

The Bible says the Israelites were able to kill 12,000 men and women because Joshua was holding out his javelin the whole time. There is absolutely no attempt to explain how holding out a javelin is supposed to have caused that. Or how the position of Moses’s hands is supposed to have influenced who was winning in an earlier battle.

Post-settlement stories

When his people are accused of stealing land from the Ammonites, Jephthah tries to refute that by talking about the Amorites instead of the Ammonites.

Later, Jephthah informed his daughter of his plans to murder her for God. So she went out into the hills to mourn with her friends for two months. And then she returned to her father to let him murder her. And it says that’s the reason the young women of Israel have a tradition of going out for four days each year. Why four days? If Jephthah’s daughter is the reason they’re doing this, why don’t they go out for two months?

A Levite became like a son to Micah, because they agreed that the Levite would be his father. Another Levite explained that some men had raped and killed his girlfriend, and that’s why he chopped her up and sent the pieces all over the country.

David tries to convince Abiathar to stay with him, by pointing out that David knowingly got Abiathar’s whole family killed. And that the man who wants to kill Abiathar is also trying to kill David. Therefore, Abiathar will definitely be safe with David.

David speculates that one possible reason Saul is trying to kill him could be that some people convinced him to. And then David somehow concludes that those hypothetical people must have told someone to serve other gods.

The Jebusites were confident that even the blind and lame among them could keep David out of their city. David heard that, and started talking about the Jebusites like they were all blind and lame. And that’s how “The blind and lame will not enter the palace” became a saying, somehow. Even though nobody was talking about the Jebusites entering anything.

King David decides that everyone in his household except for ten of his girlfriends has to flee immediately, or else his son Absalom will slaughter the whole city. And then he starts talking about “King Absalom“. Where did he get these ideas about Absalom? Just from somebody telling him that “The hearts of the people of Israel are with Absalom.” As far as I can tell, David had no reason at this point to think Absalom was plotting anything against him.

David is thirsty, so some of his best warriors risk their lives to get him some water. Then David refuses to drink it. Because those guys risked their lives to get it for him, and that somehow means he can’t drink it.

A psalmist thinks if God fulfilled his promises to people, that would be a good way to make people fear him. What’s so scary about someone keeping promises they made to you? And then there’s Solomon, who thinks you should fear God because dreaming and talking too much is meaningless.

Solomon’s brother wants to marry the girl who used to platonically share a bed with his father. And Solomon thinks that’s the same as wanting to rule the kingdom. Solomon also thinks that by building a temple for God, he’s fulfilling what God said when God said he never asked for a temple.

Solomon says officials have a hierarchy among themselves. So he thinks you shouldn’t be surprised if they unjustly oppress the poor. He says God is the cause of both good times and bad times. And he thinks that’s why you can’t know the future. He tells about a wise man who was forgotten, and he concludes that wisdom is better than strength. And he thinks youth is meaningless, and that’s why you shouldn’t be anxious or troubled.

Elijah asks God to kill him, because Elijah isn’t better than his ancestors. I didn’t know being superior to all your ancestors was a requirement for getting to live, did you?

The people of Judah were afraid of the Babylonians, because an Ammonite sent a Hebrew to kill the leader that the king of Babylon had appointed for them. That might be a reason to be afraid of the Ammonites, but it’s certainly not a reason to be afraid of the Babylonians.

Post-exile stories

Nebuchadnezzar sees that the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego has rescued them. And he concludes that no other god can do the same thing. Even though he hasn’t actually tried executing followers of all the other gods to see if their gods rescue them too. He also concludes that he should kill anyone who says anything bad about this God. That doesn’t in any way logically follow from either of those things.

Daniel’s enemies convince King Darius to make a law against praying to anyone but Darius. Then they report that they saw Daniel praying. So they tell the king that Daniel is breaking the law. Even though Daniel could have been praying to Darius, for all they know.

If you get persecuted the way the prophets were persecuted, Jesus expects you to be happy about it. Because that somehow means you’re going to be greatly rewarded. Even though you didn’t necessarily do anything good.

If God knows how to give you a good gift, Jesus thinks that’s a reason to follow the Golden Rule. Jesus also tells people to be good and loving and generous to their enemies. But he says the reason to do that is because God is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. That is not a reason to do that. It’s a reason to be ungrateful and wicked.

Jesus gets mad at towns because they don’t repent when they see him do miracles. I’m not sure why he expected them to. How is seeing miracles a reason to repent?

Jesus’s disciples ask him why he talks to people in parables. His non-answer is that it’s because the people don’t understand what they see and hear. Unclear messages are not going to help with that problem. Jesus also implies that he doesn’t really want all those people to know “the secrets of the kingdom of heaven” for some reason. If that’s the case, that’s still not a reason to speak in confusing parables. If you don’t want them to know, why talk to them at all?

Jesus makes a terrible analogy about fish and afterlives. And he says that’s why teachers of the law who become disciples are like an owner of a house who brings out new and old treasures. Then he tells Peter that 77 is how many times Peter should forgive his sibling. And that’s why the kingdom of heaven is like a king who makes slaves of the families of people who can’t pay their debt.

Jesus thinks the least of his disciples is the greatest. And that’s why if they welcome some kid, they’re welcoming Jesus and God. I’m not sure what those things have to do with each other. Is he trying to get them to welcome that little kid to be a disciple, so the kid can be the least and the greatest disciple? That would mean Jesus and God would also become disciples of Jesus… This isn’t making any sense.

Jesus attempts to convince people that they should give up everything they have… using stories about people who clearly would be even worse off if they did that. The people in the stories need more of what they have, not less. So Jesus is saying you should give up everything you have “in the same way” that these people… shouldn’t??

A man thinks it’s remarkable that the Pharisees don’t know where Jesus came from, “yet” Jesus was able to cure the man’s blindness. How would the Pharisees knowing where Jesus was from make it any easier for him to cure blindness?

Jesus thinks hired hands, unlike their employers who actually own the sheep, have no reason to care about the sheep’s survival. But why wouldn’t a hired hand care? If he fails to care for the sheep, he’ll be a fired hand.

Jesus says he’s going to kill himself, but only temporarily, and that’s why his father loves him. How is that a reason to love someone?

Jesus loves his friend Lazarus. So when he hears that Lazarus is sick, Jesus stays right where he is for two more days and lets Lazarus die.

Jesus talks to God, and he points out that he really didn’t need to say what he just said to God. And he explains to God (needlessly) that he was actually saying it so the people watching him would believe that God had sent him. How are they supposed to conclude that? Nothing he just said gives them a good reason to think that.

Pilate says Jesus hasn’t broken any Roman laws, and he tells the Jews to crucify Jesus themselves. Then instead of reminding Pilate that the Roman law doesn’t allow Jews to do that, Jesus’s Jewish enemies agree that Jesus broke a Jewish law, not a Roman law… and that’s why they’re insisting that the Romans have to punish him??

The centurion is described as praising God when he declares that Jesus was a righteous man, after watching him get tortured and killed. Why is he praising God for letting a righteous man be tortured and killed?

Peter acknowledges that the money Ananias has earned belongs to Ananias. But he thinks that somehow supports his idea that Ananias has done something wrong by keeping a little of his own money for himself.

Rules

Why do men move away from their parents and go marry women? The answer in Genesis is that one time God stole a man’s rib while he was unconscious and turned it into a woman. So… men and women should be joined together because God separated them? That doesn’t follow.

Jesus quotes part of that passage, and concludes “What God has joined together, let no one separate“. He thinks he’s proving that God disapproves of divorce, which the original passage he’s quoting had nothing to do with. And although Jesus mentions a reason when quoting this, he leaves out the part of the passage that actually attempts to give a reason. If he hadn’t left that part out, it would be clear that a more logical conclusion from what Genesis says would actually be “What God has separated, let no one join together”.

God tells Moses to take off his sandals because he’s standing on holy ground. He could have told him to be sure to keep his sandals on for the same reason, and it would have made just as much sense.

God says you shouldn’t eat blood because the life of a creature is in its blood. It would have made just as much sense if he’d said that was why you should eat blood.

God says there should not be a death penalty in a type of situation where God normally would command a death penalty, because in this case there’s a slave involved. I don’t see what difference that makes.

God says his people must not become slaves, because they used to be slaves, and because they are his servants. It would have made just as much sense if he had said those were the reasons they should be slaves.

God keeps making up different “reasons” his people should observe the Sabbath. For instance, he says they should do it because they used to be slaves.

God says Israelites shouldn’t treat foreigners or fatherless people or widows badly. And he says when Israelites harvest food, they should leave some for those people. The reason he gives for these commands is that… Israelites used to be slaves? How is that a reason?? Why isn’t God giving the real reasons?

God tells his people not to destroy the trees in the cities they capture… because the trees aren’t people. You’d think the fact that something doesn’t involve killing people would be a reason it’s okay to do it. But apparently God thinks that’s a reason not to do it. Only activities that involve killing people are worthwhile.

God gave somebody a skin disease once. And that’s why if you get a skin disease, you need to do just what God’s priests say. Because… if you don’t, God will give you a double skin disease? Or because it’s God’s fault that you have a skin disease, so only he can help you get rid of the problem he caused? I’m not sure what the reasoning is supposed to be here. Anyway, what if a disease breaks out all over a person’s skin, covering their whole body from head to foot? If that happens, God thinks that means the person is “clean”.

God says no one is to be punished with more than forty lashes. Not because that would be excessively cruel, but because it would somehow make other people respect the brutalized person less.

Peter told his fellow Jewish Christians that he had had a vision where God told him to eat animals that God had said not to eat. They concluded that this meant you don’t have to be Jewish to be a Christian.

Prophecy

Isaiah says God is going to bring some kind of disaster on his people. He says they should fear God, because God is a trap or a snare that’s going to make his people stumble and fall and be broken. And then Isaiah says he’ll put his trust in God. Why would you trust someone who does things like that??

The Bible suggests that there are people who decide to eat and drink because they’re going to die tomorrow. Isaiah and Paul dispute that attitude somewhat, but not for good reasons. All they needed to say was that it doesn’t follow. You eat and drink so you won’t die, not because you will die. Eating and drinking are things you normally do every day, not things you only do because you’re about to die. If anything, being about to die would be a reason you don’t need to eat or drink.

Isaiah thinks if God rescues Jerusalem from Sennacherib, then everyone will know he’s the only God. That conclusion would not be justified by this evidence. There’s no reason God couldn’t still save them if he wasn’t the only god. Then Joel says people will know there’s no other God when they have plenty to eat. That’s not even evidence that one God is real, much less evidence that other gods aren’t.

God tells Isaiah he’s planning on greening a desert, so that everyone will know God did it. But that too would be an unjustified conclusion, since people can do that.

The king asks Jeremiah why he’s predicting the fall of Jerusalem. Instead of answering, Jeremiah starts talking about God having him buy a field as if they weren’t about to be conquered. That is not a reason for Jeremiah to predict that they’re about to be conquered.

Jeremiah spends about a third of a chapter describing how absurdly cruel God is being to him and everyone around him. Then he declares that God’s great love is keeping them from being consumed. And that God’s compassion never fails. And that God’s faithfulness is great.

God suggests that he might kill people for consulting his prophets, and kill his prophets for giving the prophecies God inspires them to give. Because God thinks that’s going to help bring his people closer to him. But if God makes Jerusalem, Samaria, and Sodom prosperous again, he thinks that will make Jerusalem feel ashamed. For doing the same kind of thing God’s doing.

People living in the ruins of Israel apparently thought Abraham had possessed that land. Even if that was true, it would not follow that those people had more of a right to the land just because there were a lot of them.

God thinks if he inflicts punishments on the nations, they’ll think that’s glorious. And he thinks doing that will somehow cause the nations to know a bunch of stuff about Israel’s history and their relationship to God.

God wants Ezekiel to describe all the details of the design of the temple to the people. He thinks that will somehow make people ashamed of their sins.

God is surprised that his people seem to be “incapable of purity” in regard to idols, because these people are from Israel. As if God doesn’t know that Israel was always like that.

God told Hosea that he had decided not to punish the women of Israel for being prostitutes, because prostitution happens, therefore prostitutes don’t need to be punished. Hosea also thinks lawsuits happen because people make promises and agreements. There’s got to be more to it than that.

Amos says God is going to punish Israel for their sins, because they’re the only nation God has chosen. How is that a reason? Does God not also punish other nations when they sin? If God hadn’t chosen Israel, would they not have to be punished no matter what they did? And if the reason for punishment is something God did, why isn’t God the one being punished?

Zechariah says an angel told another angel to tell a man that Jerusalem wouldn’t have walls because there would be a lot of people and animals in it. I’m not sure how that follows.

God says he wants people to love peace and truth. But he doesn’t actually help people understand why peace and truth are good things. Instead, he tries to convince them in a way that makes absolutely no sense. He reminds his people that he’s regularly depriving them of food. He says he expects that to somehow make them happy. And then that completely irrelevant situation is supposed to somehow motivate them to love truth and peace?

God tells his prophet Zechariah that one day, it will no longer be acceptable to prophesy. At that time, anyone who prophesies will be stabbed to death by their parents. Why? Because their parents will accuse them of telling lies in God’s name. Anyone who prophesies. It doesn’t matter if they’re actually telling the truth, and/or speaking in some other god’s name. They’re prophesying, so their parents will say they’re telling lies in God’s name, and will kill them for it. And God will approve.

Malachi says everyone has the same creator. Then he somehow concludes that it’s detestable for his people to marry foreigners.

God accuses his people of robbing him. How would you even do that? God’s evidence for his accusation is that… they’re doing the opposite. His people are offering food to him. Which he doesn’t even need. But they’re not offering him as much as he would like, so he claims they’re “robbing” him.

Paul’s letters to the Corinthians

Paul says it doesn’t matter whether you’re circumcised or not. All that matters is whether you follow God’s commands.¹ But then why was Paul just now trying to make new rules about who should be circumcised?

Paul then discusses the question of whether to get married, considering that the world is about to end. Paul says unmarried people are concerned with how they can please God. And Paul wants people to be free from concern. The logical conclusion from this would be that people need to get married. But Paul’s position is more that it’s better not to get married, but it’s okay to get married too, and it really doesn’t matter.²

Paul acts indignant that some people seem to think he lacks “the right to not work for a living”. So apparently Paul thinks he doesn’t have to work. But he insists that he has “the right to food and drink” anyway. So Paul thinks he has a right to be fed even if he doesn’t work. But then he goes on a rant about people who do work having a right to be rewarded with food. As if that’s supposed to support what he was saying. Or as if that’s what he had been trying to convince people of.

Paul says he’s compelled to preach, and as long as he’s preaching, he can’t boast. And that’s why he refuses to let anyone stop him from boasting.

Paul says everything in the world belongs to God. And that’s why he thinks everything sold in the meat market is okay to eat. Does that really follow? I mean, you’d think if the world was God’s, there wouldn’t be anything bad in it… but that’s obviously not the case.

Paul says you shouldn’t let somebody else’s conscience get in the way of your own freedom. That would mean if somebody else is worried about some food having been offered to pagan gods, that shouldn’t stop you from eating it. But Paul instead tries to use it to justify the opposite conclusion.

Paul thinks women were “given” long hair “as a covering“, whatever that means. And that’s why he thinks women’s heads need an additional covering, while men’s heads don’t. He also tries to justify his opinion with a statement about the relation between God, man, and woman, which doesn’t really support what he was saying either.

Then after describing women as being beneath everyone else, and telling them what they’re required to do with their heads, and saying nothing about angels… Paul concludes that that’s why women should have authority over their own heads. Because of the angels!

Paul wants to say there’s a difference of some kind between… his fellow preachers and his followers, I guess? So he makes a statement about… everyone who’s alive? And also people who are getting killed? There’s no way such a vague and universal statement can support whatever distinction he’s trying to make.

Paul says that “one died for all, and therefore all died“. What would be the point of one dying for all, if all were going to die anyway??

Paul claims he doesn’t want to frighten his followers with his “weighty and forceful” letters. So he assures them that he will act the same way when he sees them in person. But that’s not reassuring. It’s threatening.

Paul thinks as long as the followers supplying his needs aren’t the same ones he’s currently visiting, that means he’s not a burden to anyone. But he’s worried that the people he’s not burdening might think that the reason he’s proud not to burden them is that he doesn’t love them.

Paul randomly mentions that the law requires two or three witnesses before someone can be convicted. Because he apparently thinks the fact that it says that is somehow relevant to the fact that Paul is about to visit the Corinthians for the third time.

Paul’s other letters

After saying that the law makes people sinful, Paul says the law is not sinful. Then he says again that the law gives sin an opportunity to make people sinful. And that this never could have happened without the law. And that God may have intended the law to bring life, but all it actually brings is sin and death. Then Paul inexplicably concludes that the law is “holy, righteous and good“.

Paul doesn’t think being descended from Jacob son of Isaac son of Abraham makes you a child of Abraham. To prove that it doesn’t, Paul quotes a verse where God says descendants of Isaac will indeed be considered Abraham’s offspring. Then, ignoring what the verse he just quoted actually said, Paul claims that what that verse is saying is that physical descent is irrelevant. And that who counts as Abraham’s offspring is determined by something other than what that verse actually said. The confirmation bias is strong with this one.

In the same chapter, Paul claims that God is not at all unjust. And he tries to back that up by quoting God saying he’ll have mercy on whoever he wants to. Paul clarifies that this means when God decides whether to punish people or not, that decision has nothing to do with the intentions or behavior of those people. It’s just God arbitrarily deciding not to punish some people. How is that supposed to support Paul’s claim that God isn’t unjust?

God’s law says anyone who fails to obey the entire law is cursed. Paul thinks that means anyone who even tries to follow the law at all is cursed. He’s read that righteous people live by faith. So he thinks that means anyone who relies on the law can’t be justified. He quotes the law saying that doing the things it says is what ensures your life. And he thinks that somehow supports his position. He’s trying to use these scriptures to prove the opposite of what they actually say.

God’s law says anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. Paul thinks that means that when Jesus was hung on a cross, he “became a curse”. Which somehow removed a curse from all his followers. And that curse was the law, so that means Christians don’t have to follow the law. Because the law says so.

Paul thinks his followers should become like him just because he became like them. What kind of reason is that? If Paul decided to become like them, that implies that he thinks it’s better to be like them than to be like him. So why would he expect them to become like him?

Paul claims that a man reaps what he sows. But then when he tells more specifically what he thinks people are going to reap, he’s not actually saying they’ll reap what they sowed. He’s saying they’ll reap something from what they sowed to please.

Paul apparently thinks what goes up must have previously come down. When he reads that somebody “ascended on high”, Paul concludes that that can only mean that person had come from heaven.

A recent convert shouldn’t become an overseer, because Paul thinks that could make him conceited. Which would apparently somehow make God think he was as bad as the devil.

Paul has some baffling ideas about young widows. For one thing, he thinks if they want to get married again, they’re breaking some kind of pledge. And that’s why Paul thinks young widows should get married again.

Paul (who by this time was quite old for someone from ancient Rome, and who was a leader of many churches, and whose work was preaching and teaching) said the elders who direct the church well, especially the ones whose work is preaching and teaching, are worthy of double honor. His way of justifying this statement was to quote two completely irrelevant Bible verses.

Paul has some things to say about anyone who disagrees with his bad opinions about slavery that he imagines Jesus taught. Paul can describe the bad qualities of those hypothetical people in detail. And he knows they have all those bad qualities just because they disagree with him.

Paul thinks that by emphasizing that God’s decision to save and reward people has nothing to do with any righteous things those people might have done, you can get people to carefully devote themselves to doing good.

Paul says he’s willing to pay someone else’s debt to Philemon. Then he mentions that Philemon owes Paul his life, as if that was a reason for Philemon to expect Paul to repay him, and not the other way around.

More letters

The book of Hebrews says God told people who disobeyed that they couldn’t “enter his rest”. And then it concludes that the reason those people couldn’t enter was because of what they didn’t believe. That’s not what it just said the reason was. Then it quotes again the verse about people not “entering his rest”, and acts like that’s saying some people are entering that rest.

Then it quotes the Old Testament saying God rested on the seventh day, and concludes that God must have never stopped resting. And then it quotes a psalm that tells people what to do today if they want to enter God’s rest. But the writer of Hebrews decides that when God said “today”, he must have meant some other day, far in the future.

The author of Hebrews thinks if God called Jesus his son, that means Jesus was a high priest but it wasn’t his idea. He also thinks if you don’t get disciplined, you’re not a real child of your parents.

Hebrews says Moses’ parents hid him because they weren’t afraid of the king’s decree to kill all the baby Hebrew boys. Why would they hide him if they weren’t afraid? Then it says Moses later left Egypt, not fearing the anger of another king of Egypt. Why would he leave if he didn’t fear the king’s anger?

Hebrews claims that if you shake something once more, that means the shakable part is being removed, leaving only an unshakable part. And that things can be shaken if and only if they were created.

It says the reason you should show hospitality and let people stay in your home is that your guests might actually be angels, who don’t actually need your help.

James thinks if two different laws both come from God, that means anyone who breaks one is also breaking the other. So if you keep almost all of God’s laws, you’re guilty of breaking all of God’s laws.

James says God is going to judge people without mercy, and then he concludes that “mercy triumphs over judgment”. He says God gives Christians “grace”, a word which here means God is treating them favorably even if they’ve done nothing to deserve it. And James thinks that’s why the scriptures say God only treats some people favorably, depending on how they act.

James thinks if you’re a friend of the world, you must be an enemy of God. And he tries to prove it by citing an irrelevant and incoherent passage of “scripture” that doesn’t actually appear anywhere else in the Bible.

Peter claims that Christians have become imperishable. And he thinks he can support that claim by quoting a passage that says all people are mortal and fleeting.

Peter says the Holy Spirit rests on Christians, and that should make them think insults are a blessing. He says Christians who suffer should praise God because God is punishing them. And because it’s likely that their righteousness won’t save them. And that’s why you should continue to do good, because it’s hard for the righteous to be saved.

Peter says you should resist the devil because other people are suffering the same way all over the world. I don’t see how that’s a reason.

Peter thinks if he talks enough about how he thinks the world was created and will be destroyed, that will refute the people pointing out that Jesus broke his promise to come back soon. He also thinks if the world is going to be destroyed in a certain way, that tells you what kind of life you should live.

In 1 John, it says the reason you should love others is that love comes from God. Why not just let him do it, then? That’s not a reason to do it yourself. It also says if Jesus is keeping someone safe from being harmed by Satan, then you know that person isn’t going to sin anymore.