Because the Bible Tells Me So

How can we know the truth?

Christians of most, if not all, denominations and subcultures would answer in one accord... THE BIBLE!

If all eternal and spiritual truth finds its home in only one book, then anything outside of this book, no matter how seemingly reasonable, must be subject to scrutiny and not be seen as a sure ‘word from God.’ This post seeks to find what this infallible source has to say for itself about itself.

The Canon of the New Testament had not been settled until The Period of Fixation (AD 367-405) where, “in his "Epistola Festalis" (A.D. 367) the illustrious Bishop of Alexandria ranks all of Origen's New Testament Antilegomena, which are identical with the deuteros, boldly inside the Canon, without noticing any of the scruples about them. Thenceforward they were formally and firmly fixed in the Alexandrian Canon.” The Catholic Church recognized that the validity of these decisions regarding the canonization of the New Testament rested on also proving that those that making the decisions had made infallible ones. The most solid way to insure this proof was to claim that those making the decisions themselves were indeed infallible.

For good graces of discussion, let’s assume that the God who penned the words through other fallible men also had the ability to make sure it would get published whether or not the men compiling ‘his’ works were infallible or not.

Biblical infallibility is truly the chief cornerstone of the Christian faith. For quite obvious reasons, this was not the case among the early church for perhaps several generations after the day of Pentecost. This cornerstone is more paramount than even the Resurrection of Jesus, for without the thrust of authority of infallibility or inerrancy, the need for faith in the unseen increases while the grounds of conscious reasoning decreases. In other words, without an outside and objective benchmark for what is true, all bases for the Christian faith would be on pure experience and human opinion alone. If we can’t be sure of the records being literal historicity and the actual ‘Word of God’ spoken through man, than what is left in a Christian’s mind for their faith to stand on apart from their own experiences? Christian authority certainly is dead apart from the authority of the scriptures. Christians, as divided in doctrinal stances as they appear to be, would barely have a shred of commonality apart from the bible. It may even be reasonable to say that Christianity as we know it would not even exist apart from the Christian bible having been compiled and asserted to be the ‘Word of God.’

It is very important to see that most, if not all, Christians today would stand to the end on the belief that no truth (especially spiritual or divine) can be known outside of the bible. I repeat the Christian claim for emphasis…

‘There is no authority for truth outside of the bible!’

Seeing, then, that the bible is the only true authority on truth that is proposed to be in the world today, there is only one source to seek an answer to the question of the Christian bible being the ‘Infallible Word of God’… the bible itself. Its declarations are certainly the only source that can be trusted. Any answer outside of this ultimate authority cannot be trusted. We cannot trust our human reasoning, testimonies of any man or woman, our own experiences, or any other organized authority of any kind. The bible is the source of reliable spiritual and divine truth.

The verses to follow are all from the New Testament for one simple reason. We are discussing Christianity and proving that the Old Testament is the ‘Word of God’ apart from proving the same for the New Testament does nothing to support Christianity.

In the following, I am only going to highlight the verses that speak of the nature or authority of the scriptures themselves. To simply quote a ‘fulfilled’ Old Testament scripture or mentioning of another declared scripture speaks not to the nature or authority about scripture itself, but simply states what the scriptures have said. The verses that follow were the only ones I could find that had anything to do with ‘scriptures’ or ‘word’ and that may aid us in discovering the truth of how we can be certain that the New Testament is the ‘Word of God.’

Let’s see what the bible has to say for itself…
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.(2 Timothy 3:14-17)

This is the most definitive verse used to waive the banner of inerrancy. At the time that this was written, however, the New Testament did not exist and it could be strongly argued that Paul was referring only to the Old Testament scriptures. To claim that this verse speaks of the entire 66 book bible that we have today would be taking this verse grossly out of context and reasonable application. One must first decide by faith that the Christian New Testament that we have today is considered to be scripture inspired by God before one can apply the declaration of this verse to it. This verse does not state that the New Testament we hold today is the inerrant or inspired word of God.

To say that scripture is ‘god-breathed’ or ‘inspired’ by God may be quite different than scripture being the ‘Word of God.’ An author named Tom is inspired by another author named Jim. The words of Tom are not inherently the words of Jim, however Jim was the source of inspiration. Adam is ‘God-breathed’ in Genesis. Does this mean that everything that Adam did, God was doing, or was it Adam, or was it both? Many preachers and writers do work under the anointing or inspiration of God. Does this mean that their very words are the words of God Himself or are they simply inspired? If they are the very words of God Himself, then we must heed the words of anyone ‘under inspiration’ as if they were spoken by God Himself. (That would become quite interesting.)

This Greek word meaning ‘god-breathed’ or ‘inspired’ is a tricky one because it is the only time it is ever used in the New Testament. However, regardless of how we interpret the word ‘inspired’, this verse does not state that the New Testament we hold today is the inerrant or inspired word of God.

To continue…
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

But the word of God grew and multiplied. (Acts 12:24)

And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. (Acts 13:44)

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: (Ephesians 6:17)

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever. (1 Peter 1:23)

Though all of these verses above speak of the characteristics of the ‘word of God,’ none of them point to the New Testament being the Word of God. It would seem a stronger and more realistic argument that the ‘word of God’ is something that cannot be written down, but is an un-seeable or unspeakable force or power that stirs in life and change within an individual. This has little to do with the words on a page that are to be adhered to or words on a page that we are judged by. Though these may be seen as beautiful renditions inspired by the ‘word of God,’ no where in these verses do they claim to be the words of God themselves. They actually speak to the idea that this ‘word of God’ either is referencing the Old Testament or has nothing to do with a book at all.

Remember, also, that one must first decide by faith that these verses are the words of God before one can apply the declaration and descriptions of these verses to it. We’re still searching for where the bible, today’s only sure source of knowing God’s truth, gives us the assurance that we’re on the right path to stand by the claim of infallibility.

Another verse…
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)

To apply this verse out of a book written by John to the whole of the New Testament would be taking this grossly out of context. He is surly speaking of ‘the words of the prophecy of this book.’ He is not referencing the 66 book bible we have today, but the book that he had just written. Apart from the decision to place this book at the end, for obvious reasons, we cannot assume that this verse has anything with the other 65 books of the bible.

There isn’t much, if anything, left of Christianity apart from the words in the New Testament, but according to 1 Cor. 4:20, should Christians focus so much on the written words?

For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (1 Corinthians 4:20)

This states it quite clearly. The kingdom of God is not in words. The kingdom of God is not found in the words in a book, but, at most, in what the words point to… the power behind the words. So, perhaps ‘the world’ should give Christians a break and not get so hung up about the bible and what it says. Maybe we should be disregarding what Christians say and start paying more attention to the power that they display because they’re living according to the kingdom principles of God. Do Christians provide the answers, solutions, and way to a powerful life that is impossible to be displayed in any other belief system or subculture? Do they display the power that would be expected from the people of the Almighty God?

In Closing
All of the modern Christian tradition rests on the claim that the 66 books of the bible we have today are the inerrant ‘Word of God’ and that anything spoken outside of this Bible is subject to fault and error in the light of the bible’s glorious truth. No where in the 66 books is it ever declared that the Old or New Testament that we have today is the very Word of God. It would actually point that the Word of God is something other than words in a book. Since the modern Christian’s claim that their bible is the only sure way of knowing God’s perspective and will cannot even be found in the only sure source of knowing truth, then it would stand to reason that the assertion that the bible is the very ‘Word of God’ to man is simply that… an assertion that can neither be proven nor shown to be the truth by the only book that is claimed to be the only ‘Word of God’ to man.

To believe that all mankind will be judged by the words written in the bible is a belief that may be argued and supported by much reasoning and rationale. If one wants to believe by faith that it is the only inspired, actual, and literal Word of God to all mankind, than one is free to choose this belief and may even find forms of blessing for so doing. However, one cannot argue with a shred of logic or reason that the 66 book called the Christian bible declares itself to be so.

The belief of infallibility may be derived from various trains of thought. Christians, as I once was, can build grand structures of reasoning from many angles and perspectives to ‘prove’ that the book is the ‘Word of God’ as I once did, but in the end we cannot say it is because ‘the bible tells me so.’

I do realize how absurd it would for be for anyone to expect that every verse ever written in the bible is preceded by ‘Thus saith the Lord’ and even if it did, if we were to ask how we can know for sure it comes down to what they say it always comes down to. It’s a matter of ‘faith.’ The faith that is beyond the reasoning mind is the realm that Christianity values and stands firm on. If, then, it always will come down to a matter only to be understood in the faith realm apart from rational reasoning, then it would be most authentic to keep it that way. If it is not by reasoning, but by faith alone, than a Christian Apologist may be an oxymoron. According to the 'by faith' assertion, perhaps the reasoning mind only it's place for those who are coming or have come Out of Christianity.

It seems reasonable to this ex-Christian that the most effective path to winning anyone to the Christian world view is through the tools available within the Christian belief system. Many Christians would agree that faith is the most powerful thing that a Christian has. The Christian world view can only stand on faith without evidence of reason. If this faith is only by the power of God, then it would seem that the use of the reasoning mind is ultimately unreliable for a Christian to give an answer for the hope that is within them and therefore cannot really be expressed in any words. The use of words and communication requires the use of the reasoning mind. Entering into an argument of reasoning is futile and their most sure victory to win the hearts of the world is to use this faith that conquers all reasoning and believe us all into salvation.

Probability of Cognitive Dissonance = 1/0

When I started a student freethought group at UF, I asked our faculty advisor, Prof. of Philosophy Gene Witmer, whose books I should get if I really wanted to read the strongest arguments that theism had to offer. His suggestion?

Richard Swinburne, Oxford philosophy professor, prolific author of serious works of theistic apologetics (e.g., The Existence of God, Is There a God?, Providence and the Problem of Evil)...who has apparently lost his marbles.

He claims in The Resurrection of God Incarnate to have mathematically calculated the likelihood of Jesus' resurrection, using Bayesian probability, at 97%. His logic [lack thereof]?

1. The probably of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't.
2. The probability that God became incarnate, that is embodied in human form, is also one in two.
3. The evidence for God's existence is an argument for the resurrection.
4. The chance of Christ's resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10.
5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.

oy vey!

Mark Chu-Carroll has an analysis, if one is even deserved for this kind of madness, which can be summarized thusly:

By a similar argument, I can say that probability of pink winged monkeys flying out of my butt is one in two: that is, either they will fly out of my butt, or they won't. The probability that those monkeys will fly to the home of this Oxford professor and pelt it with their feces is one in two. If pink winged monkeys fly out of my butt, that's an argument for the likelyhood of a fecal attack on his home by flying pink monkeys.

Do I really need to continue this? I don't think so; I'd better go stock up on monkey food in my bathroom.

On another note of sadness, five Mexican children were killed as they prayed at a cross by lightning. Why should we believe there was a God on the other end of those prayers, again? Oh wait, I remember now, everything God does is good, including allowing five children, ages 9-16, to be killed by lightning while offering up prayers and thanksgiving to God. What was I thinking? I'd better go pray for forgiveness...at a plastic cross, of course.

How the Bible Led Me Out of Christianity

What would cause someone to abandon the very thing that saved their life? How could someone who would’ve given everything up for what they believed… give up what they believed in order to gain nothing? My name is Aaron M. Rossetti and this is my conversion and deconversion story.

Introduction
Most of the revelations, perspectives, or philosophies that I’ve had along the journey are not totally original but they very much were to me at the time. Throughout my adventure, I realized certain things on my own and it was only after seeing that I discovered others seeing the same picture. Debunking Christianity is no exception. John and his colleagues within this community have confirmed so many viewpoints and hunches and have solidified my glorious unbelief. I so often thought that I was alone. I want to express my gratitude to everyone that has taken a risk to be a part of this group and share their story.

I certainly am not as well-read as some in this forum of intellects and have no prestigious degrees to dazzle anyone with. My story is simply my story. The path of both my conversion and deconversion was as much experiential as it was intellectual.

*Please keep in mind that some of the ideas presented here are spoken from the perspective that was held at that their corresponding stage of mentioning and are not necessarily the current perspectives of the author. :-) *

The Beginning
Being raised as a Lutheran in suburban America was a great way to grow up. My mom and dad loved me and poured a ton of love and great things into my life. I’m thankful for the chapel services, memory verses, and message of grace that was taught to me growing up. My Christian upbringing would lend a helping hand to the drama to follow in my teen years.

I was always an intense drama and threw myself into everything wholeheartedly… well… that I really felt like doing anyway.

Before Christianity
By age 15, I began the momentum of my flirtation with the drug world. ‘Pot never killed anyone. Ok. Inhale it through this mountain dew bottle, huh? Whatever.’ I didn’t get high the first or second time. Somehow this only made me more curious as to what they were all laughing at and it built up a little determination to really figure it out.

So it started small, as most things seem to, but the once a month or so turned into once a week, then day, then at lunch at school and at work too. Then…I got bored so it was time for the next frontier.

I would go on to do a couple hundred hits of LSD over the next several years. Unless you walked in those shoes, you can’t come close to imagine the insanity that never ceased. Standing numb there laughing in the campfire amidst the smell of your leg hairs burning , being terrifyingly convinced that you were dead and no one could see you, seeing crazy hallucinations, driving like an animal only to spin out into the other lane around the 15mph curve ‘cause you were doing 90, and on and on and on.

All of this excess was bound to lead to emptiness, desperation, and defeat.

Out of the World
There were no angels singing halleluiah, no one else with me, and really no peace that first night that I prayed since I was a child. ‘God, I know I haven’t talked to you for years, but I need you to get me out of this.’ Nothing changed the next morning or even the next month for that matter, but my desire to get out had surfaced.

Over the next year or so would prove to be some of the hardest, but sweetest months of cyclical failures mixed with glorious restorations. No program, church, book, mentor, or friend was there to lead me out of the mess I’d made. It was me and God working it out on our own. That voice of truth within me would eventually come to be known as the only thing of reality in my experience.

Into Christianity
I began reading the book of Proverbs in the summertime for 10min a day before work and not because I was told to, but because I just wanted to. The little ‘nuggets of truth and wisdom’ were encapsulating. Needless to say as things progressed I eventually would become (in my mind) a Christian force to be reckoned with. I delved into the study of the validity of the bible and other logical reasons to believe. RC Sproul, Josh McDowell, and others would hold some of the most glorious arguments for Christ that I’d ever heard. The summer mission projects were an avenue to hundreds of conversations with all kinds about the gospel message of Jesus Christ. I felt unstoppable on my mission for Christ as I lead bible studies, preached door to door, and discipled other men in their walks with God. I used to scoff at the street preachers shouting from park benches… now I was one. Preaching the good news of faith in Jesus being the only way to God to thousands of people can really solidify the faith of a Christian. I prayed the sinner’s prayer with more people than I can remember and it was never a religious conviction. I knew what God had done in my life and my absolute love for Him and my desire to share this awesome truth compelled me at the most sincere heart level. I loved Jesus with everything I was. He saved my life from all the death and despair that bounded me.

I desired full time ministry and felt a call to eventually go. Music had become one of my greatest loves. Writing songs, playing guitar, singing and leading worship provided refreshment every time I played. Things just opened up for me naturally in this area and I was blessed to have recorded three CDs and sold about 1500 or so of them. It wasn’t Christian music as I saw it, but an intimate portrait of my relationship with God. Quitting my full time job three weeks after returning from our honeymoon probably didn’t excite my father-in-law, but I had to do what was in my heart. I guess I would advise anyone that was going to go into full time music ministry to have at least one or two gigs lined up before you up and quit your job (unless of course, you have a huge stash.) Needless to say, my wife had this terrible habit of sleeping indoors and eating at least three times each day. I went back to work.

Hitting a Wall
The next several years spent pursuing material success were driven by a ‘vision from God’ and fueled by positive thinking books and tapes. The ‘positive thinking’ scene and church aided this ‘future millionaire for God’ that was motivated by a passion to advance the kingdom of God. However, I only lasted several years running the 16-18 hour work days that were power packed with everything I could do to ‘make it work.’ But, I only ended up at another dead end that would lead to another year in professional counseling to be added to the three years or so that I went through in years past where I worked through the emotional issues connected with all the drugs, violence, and self-abuse.

Freedom was not in pleasure pursuits. I tried that.
Freedom was not in pursuing success. (even if ‘under the anointing’) I tried that.

By now I knew that truth makes a person free, so I continued on in my quest. Destroyed inside, yes, but my desperation would lead to that which I never permanently found in the world or my faith. Both are temporary and both fail, even if someone never experiences it until death. Even most Christians would agree that they both end in death. (Faith isn’t necessary or possible on planet heaven.) If you see, there’s no need for faith. My death came before the death of the physical body.

So this desperation brought on by the collapse of all my dreams and desires had one pursuit… one question…

Who Am I?
Where to find the answer to this all consuming question of mine was obvious... The Bible.

Over the next several years I pressed into my faith with an all consuming focus and laser eye that I didn’t know was capable within a man. I had a key to the apostolic church that we attended and I used it every morning to unlock the door so I could have a sacred place to pray and work it out with God. The prayers were accompanied by short and long fasts that seemed to really tune in the transmissions from God. My studying the bible 30-40 hours a week would be the road to the pure and ultimate freedom I sought, but…

It didn’t come in the form any of my Christian peers would expect.

The season of discovering my identity in Christ was by far the most revolutionizing study that I believe can be done if a Christian seeks growth in their walk. In my brokenness, I decided to stand and believe the words that pointed me to who I am. Most Christians spend more time explaining the bible than they do believe it (by my experiential observation anyway).

Most every verse dealing with this new creation (not upgraded model) person that I was… was written in the present tense. There was no waiting for planet heaven someday. I realized that the promises were for now. I actually started to see Jesus for who the New Testament writers saw him to be and I actually swallowed the verses that said that…

-I’m a new creature.
-I am a Son of God.
-I am a brother of Christ.
-I have a divine nature.
-Jesus had a God…even after the resurrection.
-Jesus was begotten. (i.e. had a beginning)
-There is only one throne that the Father, Jesus, and me all sit on.
-I am a god.
-I am a king.
-I am a lord.
-If ‘I’ died and his life is lived through me, than I’m Christ.

This is where the great divide happened in my journey out of Christianity. I discovered that I was not only ‘not separated’ from God, but I was ‘not separate’ from God. Unification, ‘Thee in me and I in Thee.’ But… most of the Christian community can’t seem to loose the idea that they are ‘only’ a ‘sinner saved by grace.’ It was pretty clear to this bible believing born again man.

Out of Christianity
I asked every question all over again and the confidence I had gained from the love of the Spirit fearlessly propelled me to look into everything I felt lead to. The same voice that lead me out of the ashes of death and despair was faithful and I trusted and knew that voice to be more sure than every thing, thought, or even idea. The most basic assumptions were called into question. My motto and ‘The truth will stand through every challenge presented to it.’ Though my Christian companions would agree with this motto intellectually, most (if any) put this claim to the rigorous tests I had presented. Maybe the full time and trained ordained ministers that I was associated with had asked and could answer the 180+ questions that I had listed in my questionnaire about the most simple and basic tenants of Christian interpretation of scripture, but there astounded reaction to my submission didn’t give me that impression.

Sure, I got some intellectual explanations as to why this and why that, but no matter what the answer, I seemed to have at least three scriptures that would contradict the explanation. The reason for so many denominations was beginning to become clear.

It’s really pretty easy. Whenever someone gets trapped by the contradicting verses in the bible, all they have to do take the verse that fits their world view literally and then explain the other’s ‘deeper meaning’ or ‘what it’s really means.’ This can become quite a magnificently creative process. They use the ‘original language’ or ‘other versions’ of the bible or any other ‘logical’ reasoning that is first filtered through their faith. Rarely is the response, ‘Hey, good question, maybe my doctrinal stance is incorrect.’

The other way out of apparent contradictions, arguments, and oddities is to classify those verses that are of a physical nature and those of a 'spiritual' nature. The physical beings seen flying around the Old Testament, called angels, have now turned into these nebulous and 'spiritual' beings that visit the faithful to give them strength. The kingdom of God that was to come before some of those with Jesus tasted death is simply a spiritual realm either within the heart of a believer or in another world beyond the reaches of modern science. 'This cup is my blood.' The Roman Catholic Church believes, literally, these words in that when they partake of the sacrament, the blessed wine turns into the literal blood of Jesus Christ, while most Protestants see the 'spiritual' meaning of what Jesus was speaking about. The bible doesn't come out and proclaim which is physical and earthly and which is spiritual and symbolic. This is for the reader to determine.

So... revelations are given by God 'Himself', churches split, prayers are prayed for the lost, arguments ensue, and the invitation of love goes out to all the world bidding them to come into their glorious truth.

See, religious (and other) world views are like a foundational floor that is held up by many stations that carry the load of the intellectual structure or doctrine. If someone sees and investigates a crack in one of the stations, the first column may collapse. It isn’t unheard of for doctrinal positions change by the taking down and rebuilding of columns. It seems that if you continue to drill down and down and even further down in seeking to discover the core that every column crumbles in the round-robin game that the seeker finds themselves playing.

Key Question in the Search for Truth: Can All of What I Believe to be True Fit Together and Never Contradict Itself?

For example:Regarding Identity… ‘I am a sinner’ and ‘I am a new creature that is united and one with Christ’ and ‘Christ is holy and has no sin.’ Let’s do some simple algebra…

‘I’=A, ‘Christ’=B, and ‘Sinner’=C.

Due to the fact that “…he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.”(1 Corinthians 6:17) and the countless other verses showing union as in ‘one,’ then A=B. Therefore, if B does not equal C, then A cannot equal C either. It is therefore impossible for an authentic Christian to be a… C-Sinner.

So, if you’re ‘united with Christ’, it is impossible for you to be a sinner saved by grace, unless of course you’re very confused about who you are as a Christian. The only other option is that if A=C and A=B, then B=C… and I don’t think you’ll find too many Christians who will proclaim Christ to be a Sinner. (As a side for you Christians… can you look into your heart where Christ is seated and into the heavenly places where you are seated with him and please tell me where you end and God begins?)

Anyway… this is only a nano-hint as to the simple and reasonable applications of what would seem to be a reasonable mindset in any other respectable field of discovery. As this kind of recognition continued, all of the columns began to crumble… one doctrine after another. This process can take quite a toll emotionally, but just on the other side of the destruction was the freedom that I was after.

It wasn’t long until I stopped even calling myself a Christian. As I saw it, the Father that I knew would never eternally torment someone for unbelief as is prophesied to occur by most Christians. This confidence of knowing ‘my Father’ and my absolute union with his divine nature that I had received (put the rocks down, Christian, and read your bible… 2 Peter 1:4) gave me the confidence to challenge every single interpretation and assumption made by everyone around me.

When exactly the gospel message turned from ‘you are forgiven’ to ‘you have the opportunity to be forgiven,’ I’m not really sure. A little nugget that helped me get closer to what I was looking for was the revelation that we need to ask, ‘From whose perspective, God’s or man’s?’ How could Jesus take away the sin of the world, but yet put it back on someone that doesn’t believe? Was it eradicated or not?

Parked in front of Krispy Kreme Donuts, tears of repentance flowed down my cheeks. Listening to Acts 10 on mp3, it hit me….

And the vision told him, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” This man Cornelius who worshiped Peter upon his arrival was seen by God as cleansed… BEFORE he ever even heard the gospel message and believed one stinkin’ part of it. The scales fell from my eyes and I saw that God considered everyone cleansed. Period. If that was God’s perspective, I was going to see the same thing. That was when I started to realize that I wasn’t given an ‘extra’ grace of some election that has no choice but to produce the fruit of separation that contaminates the majority of Christian minds today. I realized that we all were one family. (Back ‘er down Christian, I hear the arguments. ‘But what is salvation then if not forgiveness?’)

The only way it could be reconciled with me at the time was that God has the true perspective and we as man have our experience. In order to experience this forgiveness, repentance was necessary. Then the question comes up about the judgment of eternal damnation. Well I would’ve said, ‘You show me a judge that forces someone into solitary confinement in a maximum prison for life after someone paid his fine in full because he didn’t believe it was or needed to be paid and I’ll show you the picture of the modern Christian’s God.’

‘Though they are evil’, they’d free the prisoner and throw that judge in jail for pulling a rotten stunt like that.

I entered a realm where I began to see with ‘the single eye’ that Christ said would fill everything with light. My eye was beginning to see the oneness of all things. I was beginning to see that if it all came out of God, then it was all the substance of God Itself. (by the way… if God is omnipresent which means ‘everywhere,’ how can anyone be separated from God by being put in hell?)

After reading enough scripture, I began to suspect that the claims of inerrancy couldn’t be true. This was all confirmed for me when I did everything I could to reconcile the different resurrection accounts in the 4 gospels. So, if I may digress… here’s a challenge to all the Christians pounding the drum of inerrancy. ..

First, take each gospel and label every event with a letter (i.e. ‘Mary goes to tomb’=A, etc.) Then put all four of them together and watch as the ‘miraculous and divine harmony’ appears before you. Finally, once you’ve got them all together, make a list of everything that would have to be true for your sequence to work. If this all seems a bit daunting or if the response to the inability to do this is ‘hey, it’s just different people’s perspectives of the same event and if we had all the missing details it would make sense. God just values our simple faith even without all the facts,’ then all I have to say is… ‘No, it’s not JUST different people’s perspectives; it is supposed to be the INERRANT WORD OF GOD. And if the resurrection is so paramount within God’s world view and he loved us and wanted us to know the truth and God would know that this simple analysis would be done by simple and logical people, than why did He use words (it’s not MAN’S WORD remember) that would make no sense. If He did, but we have to take 10 years of Greek and study Jewish and Roman history for 20 years to understand all the nuances, then I ask…. Who then can ever know the truth? I guess we could just trust the ‘educated man.’ This advice really sounds like it would come from Jesus, huh? No. The message of Christianity is supposed to be simple… so maybe I was just too complex to figure it out. I guess all the Christians can send a FWD email out to all their Christian brothers and sisters to pray for me everyday until this and the other couple of hundred major contradictions can come into clear view or can just stop to make any difference. Or… just advise me to close my eyes and hit the ‘just have faith, God is a mystery’ button.

OK… back to the story.

I’ll never forget the morning of the day it came crashing down. I woke up around 3:30 in the morning and continued my struggle to reconcile the accounts for an additional 4 hours. By 7:30, I jumped into my car on the peak of mad insanity as I watched it crumble and I wailed with anguished tears… ‘WHAT HAPPENED!?!?!’ I drove off and I wept and asked Him… ‘Did you rise from the dead or not?’ The response in my heart was shocking… ‘I NEVER DIED.’

The voice that was leading me for all those years was certainly not a resurrected god/man who was begotten 2000+ years ago. It was some other mystery that I thought was a god somewhere out in the cosmos that had the ability to talk to everyone simultaneously with everyone individually. He was on another mystery planet picking out curtains for my new house that we built leading people to Jesus.

I took my discoveries and train of thought regarding the resurrection accounts to an ordained minister who basically responded with a, ‘Man, I don’t really know. I wish I had more time to look into it, but I’m pretty busy.’ Honestly, I totally appreciate his honest and frank comment. ‘I don’t really know’ is more often than not the best answer.

The circular reasoning and myriad of contradictions were overwhelming to me when I tried to really put it all together. Every man had a perspective and interpretation and I could understand all of the frames that they were looking through, but I couldn’t get ever get a solid hold on anything. It was slipping away into the nothing that it really is.

As questions persisted with those around me, it was never too far into it that their inability to give a sound and congruent explanation that didn’t contradict with something that they’d said five minutes beforehand; they stepped back, and punted with ‘it’s about faith.’ I had no choice but to interpret this as ‘the mystery of truths presented in the bible just need to be believed and not understood.’ I will never be able to accept such an answer from any person or any book that claims to have ‘the truth’ and ‘the answer.’ If I can’t even understand the simplest claims of Christianity through arduous and diligent study, how can I believe that it’s real?

There are a couple of books more, but I must wrap this thing up. How did I come to be an atheist? There are many reasons, but the crux of how it crystallized with me was simple.

Back Into the World, but Free
Once the union of all things settled in… this God personality disappeared. If this so called omnipresent and all powerful God was infinite, then a personality separate and apart from anything is impossible. If infinity is everywhere, then it ceases to exist and therefore everything can be contained within this environment of infinity of no thing.To give you a visual… if everything was white then white would cease to exist for white can only be known because it is not something else. If it was always day, there wouldn’t be any daytime. It is only night that give us the ability to have a day. If this God is infinite, then there is no distinction and without distinction there can be no definition and without definition the Christian God is dead for the Christian can never say one thing about God’s distinct character and what ‘He’ is or is not like. Infinity excludes nothing… even the ‘unbeliever.’

With infinity we have the environment for everything, an infinite individual separated and apart from the infinity is impossible.

The concept of the Christian God, let alone a God at all, is simply impossible to me. And if the answer that ‘He’ is beyond our understanding and logic, then even if ‘He’ does exist, it is clear that I can never know ‘Him’ and I am forever lost.

What About Christianity?
Christians await anxiously the day when their god named Jesus returns to take their luckily elected souls to eternal bliss and simultaneously judge and banish 99% of all mankind that has ever lived (many of whom will be their family and people they work with) to a realm of eternal torment and suffering. If you have any memories in heaven of your life on earth, then heaven is impossible. Could you live in eternal bliss with the memory of your spouse, children, or grandma frying in hell? Who knows? Maybe you’ll just forget everything and this life was predetermined from the foundation of the world only for the purpose of creating billions of souls… for most to fry and the vast minority to be in eternal bliss. Honestly… I’d rather fry in hell then seek after the molding of my heart after the heart of this god who, being unlimited, could’ve designed it any way that ‘he’ wanted to.

I can’t believe that most, if many, Christians really realize the whole impact of what the say that they believe because I think most, if not all, have the best intensions and a good heart. If they realized what they were saying, their true heart would reject it all together. As a child, it’s harmless and perhaps beneficial to believe that Santa Clause is real, but there comes a time to grow up and see reality. The Christian belief system gave me something to hang on to and if I didn’t believe it, it wouldn’t have worked. My True heart devoured the imaginations of Christianity. Truly… death was swallowed up by Life. If what they are preaching truly sinks in and they still continue in their faith, they are to be most pitied. ‘Forgive them Father; they know not what they do.’

I can’t explain all the mysteries of life. I simply know that convincing me to believe in a ‘God’ again would be like trying to convince Stephen Hawking that our galaxy is the only one that exists. Impossible… he may not understand all of what the Universe is, but he does know what it is not- limited to.

Ten Plagues

Archeology in the past 30 years has reduced the historical probability of the Exodus from slim to none. There is not a lick of proof of the destination of Exodus. Even though we should have extensive amounts of evidence of an invasion of Hebrews into Canaan, we have none. No proof for the Exodus itself. We have evidence of nomads crossing the desert, but nothing of 2 million (or 20,000 if you prefer the variant reading) wandering about this area.

We have no proof, no archeological fact, not a single historical writing that the beginning of the Exodus occurred—the Ten Plagues. Using the very familiar “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” Christians often claim that the reason there is no evidence is that the Egyptians would not record these events as embarrassing, or as a cover-up for their incompetence.

The problem is—these events would have too large of an impact--politically, militarily, economically and socially, to have covered them up. Have you ever read the story of the Plagues and thought about the results in the society? Egypt would have been wiped off the map! The Ten Plagues could not have happened as recorded in the book of Exodus.

First of all, the length of time between plagues is not recorded. Did this happen over one year? Did it happen over a period of years? Depending on the convenience of the apologists, opinions differ. The impression given is that this happened in a short period of time. We have seven days between the first and second plague. There is the implication that within the same harvest time some grain is not wiped up, and subsequently it is wiped out. On the other hands, animals keep re-appearing, after having been allegedly killed off on previous plagues, which would imply this was over longer periods of time.

If it happened in a short time, as we will see, all Egyptians would be dead. If over a longer period of time, more archeological evidence and writing would have happened and didn’t. Either proposition is difficult.

Secondly, there is a question as to how far-reaching these plagues were. When it says “every” is that just exaggeration for “quite a bit”? Were they localized? The problem with this proposition is that God intended this to be a demonstration of His glory. A local sickness, killing a few cows, or a bad summer storm would not be remarkable. If the Christian wants this tale to be the jumping-off point for the establishment of Israel, it would have to be more than a few bugs.

To say, “This was so grand that God provided a way for 2 Million people to exit Exodus” and then follow up with “but it wasn’t all that as recorded in the book” is to want one’s cake and eat it too!

Finally, there are substantial reasons to determine these stories are allegories—never happened. For purposes of this particular blog, I am addressing those Christians that hold these were historical facts, and asking them to think about the implications.

Water to Blood The Nile, every stream, every river, every pond, even water stored in vessels turns to blood. 7:19. (All verses from Exodus.)

First of all this would mean the loss of drinking water. The Bible notes this problem. 7:24. How does one transport the water from rivers and streams inland? The effort must be made to dig new wells, then transport it. This could not be done in any short time at all. We still have images of victims of Hurricane Katrina, and the water problem of New Orleans. This is in an industrialized nation, with motor vehicles, planes, boats, and organizations specifically designed to respond to these types of needs. We have stored water, and could transport water from other locations. ALL of the water in Egypt turned to blood. They had no reserves. There would be a loss of life due to dehydration.

Secondly, while there would be alternative drinking sources (milk, juice, even wine) concentration would be placed on re-obtaining water itself. This would bring any industry to a halt, as people would be concentrating on the water problem, and not the work at hand.

But most important would be the loss of marine life. The fish (and other sea creatures) died. 7:21. Later, this will have in impact as to a food source. Environmental water systems, such as rivers, ponds and streams, have a necessary balance. By wiping out all of the fish, this balance would be irrevocably upset. It is not as if the blood turned back to water, and fish all of a sudden re-appeared. They were gone. It would take decades, if ever, for marine life to replenish and re-habit the rivers.

Birds that relied upon the fish for food would migrate or die. Crocodiles that relied upon the birds and fish for food would look to alternative sources. Every creature, dependant on marine life, would find alternatives, leave, or die.

Arguably, this would be enough to cripple Egypt. And we are on the first one!

Frogs, flies, boils and darkness While none of these plagues would be necessarily deadly; they would bring the economy of Egypt to a halt. There would be no building projects. No working in the fields. No fishing (as if there were fish), no transportation, no commerce, no trading. Interspersed among the other plagues, the fact that the nation was immobilized would result in only a few deaths, but would be crippling to its economy.

Anyone caught in the August 2003 blackout of North East America is familiar with how industry can come to an immediate halt. Again, even in an industrialized nation, a little thing like no electricity caused entire states to come to a standstill, and caused a ripple effect across America, regarding transportation and industry. Imagine the results in 15th Century BCE Egypt!

Death of Livestock The beginning of the terrible plagues. Every Egyptian cow, horse, donkey, oxen, camel and sheep are killed. This would cause devastating problems in a variety of areas. In transportation, every thing would have to be done on foot. Any heavy lifting or tilling of the ground would come to a standstill. The bodies would have to be buried (under dead frog carcasses, if they were still around).

But most importantly would be the loss of meat. While the Egyptians could live on grains, fruits and stores, animals would be necessary for protein input. (Don’t forget, we already lost all our fish.) Wild game would be the only option, and would start to be hunted with a vengeance.

There are no babies to grow into the next generation of animals, no cycle of life happening. The Egyptians would be forced to turn to outside sources to obtain new animals—both fully grown, as well as young to replenish the stock.

At this point, we would see a huge influx of Egyptian goods being traded to outside countries for their animals. An outpouring of gold, weapons, pottery, farm goods, rope, anything to replace these animals. While there would already be some trafficking of animals, nothing on the scale to provide animals for all of Egypt! Traders would be desperately attempting to get animals from neighboring countries, to sell to the Egyptians for ten times the price.

This is not a matter of weeks, or months, but rather years to attempt to replace a portion of these animals. Imagine being an Egyptian farmer in the interior of Egypt, and you just lost 10 sheep. How do you replace them? By the time you walk to the border, every other person has arrived before you, bartering for sheep. The price is exorbitant; more than you can ever afford. Within a day or two, there are no longer any sheep even for sale.

But you hear a rumor of more sheep coming in. So you wait a week. As more traders come in, more people arrive, and the princely sums paid the first days appear to be bargains now. Another week, another week. Every sheep is snatched up if even a bleat is heard. Egyptians start traveling farther to cut-off the traders.

After a few months, you realize that you will not be able to afford sheep this year. No more coming in, all have been bought. You go back and hope for next year. Or the year after that, maybe. But you probably won’t live that long—look what is coming next.

Hail Wipes out many of the animals that were just obtained from other countries, some servants, and much of the crops. 9:25. Again, the prices of animals would skyrocket from already unobtainable prices. Traders already completely depleted would see repeat customers begging for more.

Other nations could not help salivating at the ripe plum Egypt had become for capture. Extremely diminished, if any cavalry. No chariots to speak of. People desperate. Rioting over a caught sparrow. All efforts concentrating on survival, not production.

And for the animals that are left, what do you feed them? People have no meat, and now have no grain to eat. Stealing would be rampant. Any laws would break down at this point, and enforcement would be impossible. Stores would be rampaged and emptied. The officials indicate how bad this is by claiming that Egypt is destroyed. 10:7

Now the traders would be aware that it was grain that was in high demand. All the animal auction tents would be immediately converted to grain auction tents. The prices would go up.

And people would starve.

Locusts A killer. Every single plant is gone; nothing green is left. 10:15. (Note: this would have done within the same harvest as the hail. 10:12)

The few animals left would have nothing to eat. They would die. What would the people eat? There is no marine life. No wild animals now. No cattle, sheep, or even pigeons. But more importantly, no grain. No fruits. No vegetables.

The only food source possible would be from outside sources or roots dug up. The riches of Egypt, gold statutes, gold plates, weapons, anything of value would literally pour out of Egypt. Due to the amounts that could be charged for just a handful of wheat, the poor would die. The rich would soon be the poor.

Those in the interior of Egypt would not have access to the trading from other countries. They would be limited by transportation. Traders at the exterior of Egypt could not get stores from nearby countries fast enough to keep people from starving. We would see a mass migration away from Egypt at this point—people leaving to go into any other country just to eat grass and live.

Reflect where we are at. There was a lack of water for a period, causing dehydration. Then frogs, gnats and boils, causing sickness, and limiting commerce. A loss of animals, causing a loss of food source, and significant transportation problems. Any animals replaced are killed. All vegetation wiped out. No food, sickness about, weakness within the people the social structure, the economy, the military and economy.

Tenth Plague The firstborn of every family dies. Including the firstborn of the livestock. (Where do these animals keep coming from? And to the point of having firstborns?) Every single home in Egypt has someone die. 12:30.

This would be completely demoralizing. We have had mass deaths already from sickness and starvation. An additional death in every household. The nation would crumble. Frankly, taken literally, I would not see how there would be that many people even alive in Egypt at this point, as it was.

Oddly, the book records that the Hebrews asked the Egyptians for gold, silver and clothing, and since the Egyptians were favored toward the Hebrews, they just gave it up. 12:35-36. After reading what the plagues were doing, does this make any sense at all?

Army wiped out Although technically not a plague, it is an important event that happened immediately on the heels of these national tragedies, that would further demonstrate how Egypt would no longer be in existence if the Plagues happened as recorded.

Pharaoh pursues the Hebrews with all of his army, all the chariots and horsemen (where DO those horses keep coming from?), and his captains. 14:9. And they are wiped out. 14:28.

At this point, there is no military defense to a crippled nation. Remember, the Philistines were right next door, and were so warlike not even YHWH wanted to take them on. 13:17. And to top this all off, the Egyptians lose a slave labor force.

Can anyone take this literally? We have massive death, economic ruin, military exterminated, society destroyed, and yet what do we see when reviewing the Egyptian history? Nothing. Not a thing. Not a blip, not a burp, not even a hiccup. No massive graves. Egyptian goods stay in Egypt. The military remains a powerful force. Marine life, harvest, livestock all remain as they were.

Even assuming the Egyptians desired to eliminate the history by not recording it, the effects would be evident. If God did it to demonstrate his Glory, then he immediately removed all traces of it happening. Removed all the bodies. Replaced all the animals. Took the gold/silver from the traders and replaced it in Egyptian coffers. Restored the military. Re-established the society.

Is that what Christians are saying happened? A miracle that, once recorded in people’s minds, all effects were miraculously removed?

OR, is it more likely this is a story. A legend. In stories and legends, we don’t have to worry about the effects. We can introduce animals, or remove animals as necessary. We can “wipe out an entire crop” and not worry about what the actual results of such actions would be. It is a story.

Babinski's Web-icles, A Short List

Please forgive me for not posting often. I read far more than I write these days, and have plenty of other things that fill up my time. However, if anyone would like to catch up on some of my past web-icles that explain in detail why I doubt Christianity, below is a short list.

Let me preface the list with a statement found in a work edited by Bruce Metzger, a textual scholar who is held in high esteem by many of his fellow Evangelical Christians. Note that Metzger was one of the main editors in the reference work I cite that admits that none of the four canonical Gospels featured the names of their authors when they were first composed. They were originally anonymous works and only many decades after they were written did they receive their “names” such as the Gospels of "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke" and "John."

For instance, the Gospel of Luke, does not name "Luke" as its author, and only names the person for whom that Gospel was allegedly written, i.e., "Theophilus." Likewise the Gospel of John is anonymous and says in chapter 20 simply that "we" testified/wrote it, while chapter 21 says it was the "beloved disciple" who was its author/testifier. Note that chapters 20 and 21 of that Gospel feature their own ending verses as if to suggest that the Gospel may have originally ended with chapter 20, and the unsatisfying claim that an unnamed "we" wrote it, so another chapter arose and was added to lend the Gospel individual apostolic authority but still of an anonymous nature since the "beloved disciple" was not named.

At any rate, note the admissions below in a standard scholarly Biblical reference work edited by at least one Evangelical. We certainly are not speaking of inerrant claims as to who wrote the Gospels, and that alone should make one wary of attempting to squeeze unquestionable dogmas or unquestionable history out of them:

“Not only did Jesus himself write nothing, but the attribution of the gospels to his disciples did not occur until the late first century at the earliest. . .

‘Matthew: Written by an unknown Jewish Christian of the second generation, probably a resident of Antioch in Syria.

‘Mark: [There is] confusion in the traditional identification of the author . . .

‘Luke: Possibly written by a resident of Antioch and an occasional companion of the apostle Paul.

‘John: Composed and edited in stages by unknown followers of the apostle John, probably residents of Ephesus.’

--Kingsbury, J.D., “Matthew, The Gospel According to,” in Metzger and Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible [Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1993], pp. 502-506

To learn more about my reasons for leaving the fold, especially reasons for doubting "the resurrection" stories, I include a list of links below. I also consider the many dubious "prophecies" in the New Testament another good reason to doubt the veracity of the Bible.

Letter On The Resurrection Written to Apologist Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University (An Evangelical friend agreed I had raised some "knotty problems," while Habermas asked an Evangelical publisher about possibly publishing a dialogue between us--though the publisher's response was 'No.')

Letter I Received From Producer of Lee Stroble's "Faith Under Fire" And My Response Concerning Historical Criticism of the Bible

Scholars Comment on N.T. Wright's Resurrection Arguments

Additional Reviews of N.T. Wright's Resurrection Book by Scholars

The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus [article by Dr. Robert M. Price]

Literary Criticism and Historical Accuracy of the Gospels, Including a Discussion of the Alleged Words Spoken by the Resurrected Jesus That Grew In Number With Each New Gospel, Or That Were Simply Added As in Mark's Three Additional Late Endings

C.S. Lewis’ “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”

The "Born Again" Dialogue In the Gospel of John [a point made by Bart Ehrman]

Newsweek Defends Resurrection as History in Newsweek's Easter issue, March 28th, 2005

Agnosticism: Reasons to Leave Christianity

What Happened to the Resurrected Saints?Raising doubts not saints.

More About the Resurrected Saints

The Christian Think Tank's Response to Questions Concerning "The Many Resurrected Saints"

The Lowdown on God's Showdown

The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah [not by me, though I suggested some books the author employed in his research and for which he thanked me]

Not One, But Mutiple Views Of Biblical Writers On The Afterlife

The Former Popularity among Christians of The Abominable Fancy, or, A Heaven that only "Snuff Film" Aficionados Could Love

Is the Book of Revelation a Literary Patchwork Quilt? (Including a Discussion of the First Book of Enoch)

Or read Dr. Price's Beyond Born Again (a sort of warm up book to be read before the rest of Price's writings, written while he was still a liberal Christian)

Leaving my own work for last, Leaving the Fold.

Ed

My Encounter With Calvinism

I encountered Calvinism and studied it during the time of my life when I was an Evangelical born again Christian, i.e., having met a theologically conservative Calvinist who shared with me Rushdooney’s, Van Til’s and Gordon Clark’s works published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. I even made two “pilgrimages” to Westminster Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania during this period (Westminster Theological Seminary was founded by a former theologian at Princeton Theological Seminary who left that seminary in protest during the "fundamentalist/modernist" controversies of the early 20th century), where I caught a fleeting glance of Cornelius Van Til, talked with a few students, and spent most of my time picking out books in their bookstore. You might think that I would have trouble getting along with those who believed with certainty that miracles (like the gift of tongues) ended during the age of the apostles, and who handed out tracts that stated on the front in bold print, MOURN! GOD HATES YOU! But Calvinism intrigued and even interested me very much at that time.

I attended my friend's "Reformed Anglican" church [a conservative Calvinistic denomination] twice and spoke briefly with his minister. What a “solid” faith, I thought. God “made some vessels for eternal honor and made others for eternal dishonor” simply to bring glory to Himself and demonstrate His eternal “compassion” and eternal “justice.” After the Fall "free will" was just a word (as Calvin and Luther taught). Conversion was up to God. He either bestowed upon people the “gift of saving faith,” or denied it and damned them eternally. In a sense it was a relief, knowing that you were not responsible for anyone else’s salvation. You did not have to plead with anyone, nor devise clever gimmicks to entice them toward the faith as utilized by many Christian youth ministries. [sic] The “absoluteness” of God’s will was emphasized. If someone did not agree, such was God’s will, let them be damned. It was also a demanding faith for those already in it. They had to avoid unclean associations, i.e., anything that might intrude on the “purity” of their theology and behavior. From thence have arisen “Reconstructionist” and "Dominion" Christian movements, consisting of people who would like to see ancient Hebrew laws like the Ten Commandments enforced rather than the Ten Amendments of our present Constitution. (Such folks would apparently rejoice to live in a country were the First Amendment's quarantee of religious freedom was replaced by the First Commandment's "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," under penalty of death.)

I left Calvinism behind after realizing that, unlike the believers I had met, I could

1) Not relinquish the “non-elect” to God’s eternal "justice.” I admitted honestly to myself that heaven would not be heaven for me if such a thing were true.

2) Nor could I conceive of any reasonably good being maintaining an eternal concentration camp.

3) Nor did it seem to me that the doctrine of “total depravity" (both spiritual and mental) of all the "non-elect" appeared true.

4) Nor did the Calvinist rationalization appear true that any and all righteous (and rationally cognizant) behavior manifested by the non-elect was merely “common grace,” without which the world would be a “living hell.”

Speaking of which, why must God's love and even God's "common grace," run out if it was so "common" to begin with? Especially taking into consideration the promise in 1 Corinthians 13 that love was "long suffering," "not jealous," "keeps no record of wrongs," "covers all things," "has faith for all things," "hopes in all things," "endures in all things," and "never fails," but "remains?" (Which is not to deny that true believers have their own ways of attempting to "reconcile" every "question" the Bible's diverse teachings raise, including the above. They wouldn't be true believers if they couldn't accomplish such reconciliations at least in their own eyes. *smile*)

To put some of the questions above in especially stark contrast, take these two dark quotations from the Reformation's two most prominent fathers:

“This is the highest degree of faith, to believe him merciful when he saves so few and damns so many, and to believe him righteous when by his own will he makes us necessarily damnable, so that he seems, according to Erasmus, 'to delight in the torments of the wretched and to be worthy of hatred rather than of love.' If, then, I could by any means comprehend how this God can be merciful and just who displays so much wrath and iniquity, there would be no need of faith.” [Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Luther’s Works, Vol. 33. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, p. 62-63.]

I agreed that worshipping a God who “seemed to delight in the torture of the wretched” would take more faith than I had. Not to mention what Calvin had to say:

“Whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God?... The decree is dreadful [horribile] indeed, I confess.” [Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book II, chapter xxiii, section 7]

Again, I had to agree, "horribile." Interestingly, I found an ally at that time in C. S. Lewis who appeared to be arguing against such views when he wrote:

“[There are dangers in judging God by moral standards, but] believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him ‘good’ and worshipping Him, is still greater danger... The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scripture is to prevail when they conflict." [Lewis was replying to the Biblical accounts of what he called “the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua” and the account of Peter striking Ananias and Sapphira dead, called ‘Divine’ decrees by those who believe Scripture is without error.-ED.]

Lewis continued: "I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible… To this some will reply ‘ah, but we are fallen and don’t recognize good when we see it.’ But God Himself does not say we are as fallen as all that. He constantly in Scripture appeals to our conscience: ‘Why do ye not of yourselves judge what is right?’—‘What fault hath my people found in me?’ And so on."

“Things are not good because God commands them; God commands certain things because he sees them to be good. (In other words, the Divine Will is the obedient servant to the Divine Reason.)... If [on the other hand] ‘good’ simply means ‘what[ever] God wills’ then to say ‘God is good’ can mean only ‘God wills what he wills.’ Which is equally true of you or me or Judas or Satan.” [Lewis in letters to John Beversluis]

Lewis put matters succinctly in A Grief Observed:

“The real danger is of coming to believe such dreadful things about Him. The conclusion I dread is not ‘So, there’s no God after all,’ but, ‘So, this is what God is really like. Deceive yourself no longer.’"

Even J. P. Holding of Tektonics apologetics, who defends every act of suffering and slaughter directed or performed by God in the Bible in a relatively inerrant fashion, admits that he can no longer believe in hell as a place of eternal "torture." Though Calvin wrote about hell being a place of inconceivable torment, being buffetted about by God's wrath for eternity.

Indeed, besides the lovely notion of "infant damnation" which was agreed upon for centuries by the most prominent Lutherans, Calvinists and Catholics, all three groups also appear to have agreed upon the idea of the righteous being overjoyed at the sight of the damned in hell suffering. Orthodox Calvinists and Catholics both defended such a belief for centuries. Such a view was later derided by being called "The Abominable Fancy.")

As for any replies that the description of my personal encounter with Calvinism might receive, I leave my Calvinist friends (or my true believer friends of whatever stripe) with these words:

“The silly fanatic repeats to me... that it is not for us to judge what is reasonable and just in the great Being, that His reason is not like our reason, that His justice is not like our justice.

"Eh?!

"How, you mad demoniac, do you want me to judge justice and reason otherwise than by the notions I have of them? Do you want me to walk otherwise than with my feet, and to speak otherwise than with my mouth?”

[Voltaire, of course]

A Hoax?

The people at Triablogue are having the last laugh. First they did a parody of people at The Secular Outpost (scroll down or search for “Triablogue: Flippant dismissals,” and “The plot thickens...,” where they also did one of us here at DC, Flippant Dismissals . Recently they did one of themselves You Heard it First From Me, where they claimed their own Blog is a hoax.

Another atheist website has asked aloud if this DC Blog is a hoax. Thankfully they decided on their own that it isn’t.

-------------
Added note: This atheist site, Godis4Suckers, has retitled their original post from "Is Debunking Christianity a Hoax?" to the present one where they claim Triablogue is lying about us. But I still say Triablogue is not trying to spread lies about us, another misrepresentation by this atheist site, they were just poking some fun at us. There is enough to attack Christian thinking about that we do not need to misrepresent what they intended.
---------------

Let me say a few things. In the progression of my thought from Christian Apologist to Atheist I went through several stages. I became a liberal Christian, then a Deist, then an Agnostic, and finally an Atheist. This should surprise no one, since that’s what typically happens as one continues to travel down the road of doubt. In my earlier book I described myself as an Existential Deist and I wrote as one. I initially wrote it to explain to people who knew me why I was no longer a Christian. What I didn’t expect is the attention it would get because I am a former student of William Lane Craig’s. And I took a lot of flack from Christians on discussion groups and sites because they didn’t like my book or that I came out with it. As I continued to think through the issues and discussed things with believers and non-believers, I finally became an atheist. So I extensively revised my book. It is so different in the depth of arguments presented, and the topics I discuss, and even the tone itself, that I renamed it: Why I Rejected Christianity.

Triablogue was probably just poking fun--that is all--and I don't mind having a little fun either. Although, Christians on the web try to discredit atheists as much as they can, so if taken that way, they just did what they repeatedly seem to do to atheists. When they cannot answer our arguments they try to discredit us. And they are trying to make a point about the gullibility of we atheists. Don’t buy into it.

If this site is a hoax, what is it a hoax about? That the contributors listed on the sidebar are not really contributors? What would convince you? Ed Babinski and I asked that Farrell Till and Dan Barker join as contributors to help add some more credibility to our site, okay? Whether they actually post much is to be seen, but I suspect that with the controversy they will. But would that convince anyone? This site is not a hoax. We really do exist as the people we say we are. And the people who prefer to be nameless are really there too. We're not mythic--last time I checked! :-) [As far as the supposed dead-end links go, let us know where they are and we'll try to fix them. Sometimes it's merely the Blogger mainframe itself.]

By the way, if according to Christianity our salvation and/or damnation depends so much on getting at the truth, and we all (atheists and believers) come to such a wide diversity of opinions on what someone writes, even in today’s world when we can check them out, or even if the people themselves exist, or if they are presenting a hoax, then it doesn’t offer we humans much hope of getting at the truth at all.

Even though that atheist site is wrong about us, and they are, I still prefer their kind of skepticism to the gullibility of Christians who believe in fairy tales of miraculous events among superstitious people. So to them I say, keep on keeping on…..

Now, back to our regularly scheduled debates…... where any intelligent comment is welcomed.

Question: Does Faith or Religious Activity Improve Health?

Kaffinator gave us two questions in the comments section, which I am dealing with separately. One deals with health and religion, while the other deals with charity and religion.

Question 1:

Mr. Atheist, if you had your wish and all of the Christians in the United States suddenly joined you, the result would be that ... Many more people would experience depression and high blood pressure, placing a greater drain on the health-care system. Americans in general would suffer a massive loss in life expectancy. I'm sure I could go on.

So here is my question. What kind of warped morality would wish this upon a nation?

If Kaff was correct in his fundamental premise, it may indeed be more ethical to promote churchgoing, regardless of its core truth value, simply to decrease pain and suffering. Unfortunately for all of us, no evidence of such magic exists.

"A large US study found that religious folk had lower blood pressure, less depression and anxiety, stronger immune systems and generally cost the health-care system less than people who were less involved in religion." [link]
This has to be one of the most bankrupt studies I've ever read. Can anyone say, cum hoc, ergo propter hoc? you know, they say that those people who carry matches in their pocket tend to get lung cancer more, so we ought to speak out about carrying matches as a risk for cancer, right? [roll eyes]

Let's look at the abstract:
METHODS: A probability sample of 3,968 community-dwelling adults aged 64-101 years residing in the Piedmont of North Carolina was surveyed in 1986 as part of the Established Populations for the Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly (EPESE) program of the National Institutes of Health. Attendance at religious services and a wide variety of sociodemographic and health variables were assessed at baseline. Vital status of members was then determined prospectively over the next 6 years (1986 1992). Time (days) to death or censoring in days was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: During a median 6.3-year follow-up period, 1,777 subjects (29.7%) died. Of the subjects who attended religious services once a week or more in 1986 (frequent attenders), 22.9% died compared to 37.4% of those attending services less than once a week (infrequent attenders). The relative hazard (RH) of dying for frequent attenders was 46% less than for infrequent attenders (RH: 0.54, 95% CI 0.48-.0.61), an effect that was strongest in women (RH 0.51, CI 0.434).59) but also present in men (RH 0.63, 95% CI 0.52-0.75). When demographics, health conditions, social connections, and health practices were controlled, this effect remained significant for the entire sample (RH 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-.81), and for both women (RH 0.65, 95% CI 0.554-.76, p<.0001) and men (RH 0.83, 95% CI 0.69-1.00, p=.05). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults, particularly women, who attend religious services at least once a week appear to have a survival advantage over those attending services less frequently.
First, note the p-value = 5 for men, and less than 0.0001 for women, which immediately raises an intelligent person's eyebrows. The authors comment that males are much less likely to attend religious services, yet, this effect is least pronounced in males??

The p-value is a measure of statistical reliability of any correlative study. There should be no significant difference between the sexes if the variable studied is the causative factor. Second, note that they made no concession for AGE!. Think about this for a minute, if you are still attending church, whether 50 or 100, do you kind of think...you're in better health than the BEDRIDDEN friend of yours? Christian or not? 50 or 101? Well, it sounds good at first, and then, the more you think about it, people with arthritis of the hip won't die tomorrow, but can't attend services, while those with fine walkin' skills and Jeebus-lovin' skills still go to church, but have a bad heart, which pops on em at 50...hmmmm...

This is a terrible study, and the follow-up researchers who cited this study agreed:
see Risk Factors, Confounding, and the Illusion of a Statistical Control, Psychosomatic Medicine, v66 i6 p868 (2001)

You apparently didn't read the follow-up study by the same authors, did you? See, this prelim was published in 1999, and when their methodology flaws were pointed out to them, they decided to go back and try again. Funnier still, the follow-up by the same authors admitted:
During a median 6.3-year follow-up period, 1,137 subjects (29.5%) died. Those reporting rarely to never participating in private religious activity had an increased relative hazard of dying over more frequent participants, but this hazard did not remain significant for the sample as a whole after adjustment for demographic and health variables. When the sample was divided into activity of daily living (ADL) impaired and unimpaired, the effect did not remain significant for the ADL impaired group after controlling for demographic variables (hazard ratio [RH] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91–1.35). However, the increased hazard remained significant for the ADL unimpaired group even after controlling for demographic and health variables (RH 1.63, 95% CI 1.20–2.21), and this effect persisted despite controlling for numerous explanatory variables including health practices, social support, and other religious practices (RH 1.47, 95% CI 1.07–2.03).

In plain English, once these educated idiots realized their study was flawed, and went back and fixed the uncontrolled variables (comparing bedridden people who may or may not wish to go to church, and/or who may or may not have gone until becoming bedridden, at the age of 101, with a healthy 60 year old, is about the dumbest study I've ever seen), they found, guess what? That the activity of daily living was more important than anything else. Surprise surprise. So, whether grandma is out gardening or praising Jeebus in church, she, SHOCKER, is statistically more likely to be healthier than someone who does neither (often, because they can't). Man, whatta GD study, a real charlie foxtrot. In their own words, admitting this:
A study by Koenig and coworkers demonstrated that an ill, elderly population may not be able to overcome the force of impending mortality even when employing various behaviors that have been shown in healthy populations to correlate with extended survival (42 [this is the study that the BBC article you linked to cited]). It is possible that the relatively subtle effects of private religious activity are not sufficient to overcome the overwhelming force exerted on mortality by health decline to the point of ADL impairment. Thus, the milder effects of private religious activities on mortality are more detectable among those persons who are relatively healthy. Future studies may want to ask how long a person has been engaged in private religious activity, to determine if habits begun after the onset of ADL impairment are begun too late to show a survival benefit.

Beautiful, eh? If they're really bad off, Kaff, don't try to look for Jeebus' help. Also, never mind the social support and friendships and human networking that come with churchgoing, which often explains away the "milder effects", without invoking your Magic Man.

Swedish scientists studying an overview of these kinds of studies conclude:
Our analyses reveal that most domains of activities are associated with reduced mortality risk; however, in most instances the likelihood that healthier individuals tend to be more involved in activities serves as an effective explanation for these associations. [ie, if you're in good health, you're more active, be it religiously or otherwise, and that's why the ADL effect noted in your paper made the religious "protection" disappear...duh]

...Older men appear to benefit from participating in solitary but active pursuits, measured with an index that includes hobbies such as carpentry and gardening. This finding deserves a word of caution. Because respondents selected activities on the basis of their capacity to engage in them, we cannot be certain that existing differences in health between active and less active men are responsible for this finding....[note that these researchers are more thoughtful and clever than to commit the cum hoc, ergo propter hoc of your paper]...

Formal group involvement—organizational and religious activities—produces no longevity benefits, because their association with mortality is fully explained by the tendency of healthier respondents to be engaged in those activities. This "selection" hypothesis goes against the findings of other studies, particularly those that find religious attendance to be a robust predictor of mortality among elderly persons (Idler and Kasl 1992Citation; Koenig et al. 1999Citation; Oman and Reed 1998Citation). Interestingly, family contact does not predict mortality risk and is consequently omitted from our analysis. This finding is in line with earlier studies of oldest old persons in Sweden showing that family integration tends to have virtually no effect on various kinds of health outcomes of elderly persons. It is also consistent with the current Swedish welfare model that mandates the state, through public services, to assume the main responsibility for providing care needed by elderly persons (Parker 2000Citation; Szebehely 2000Citation)....
see The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56:S335-S342 (2001).

Let's end with the discussion by your papers' authors:
In this study we found that private religious activities provided a protective effect against mortality for an elderly population free of functional impairment, even after controlling for numerous covariates; no such effect persisted in the ADL impaired group. To our knowledge, this is the first study to document a possible protective effect for private religious activity on mortality in a large community-dwelling population. Whereas studies of organizational religious activity (ORA) and mortality have shown a positive correlation (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9), this study demonstrates protection via nonorganizational religious activity (NORA), at least for those who practice NORA before the onset of impairment in ADLs.
BUA-HA-HA-HA...good stuff! I think I'll thus avoid church and stay busy in the garden, and then when I get impaired, I'll send my wife to church to ensure her survival, but flip a coin to determine whether or not it will confer benefit for me to go, ah hell, who am I kidding? I'll keep working in the garden, it's good for us that God cursed the ground, eh?

see
Does Private Religious Activity Prolong Survival? A Six-Year Follow-up Study of 3,851 Older Adults, The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, v55, m400 (2000) [follow-up by your authors]

See also:
Physicians and Patient Spirituality: Professional Boundaries, Competency, and Ethics
Roles of Religious Involvement and Social Support in the Risk of Colon Cancer among Blacks and Whites
Religion, spirituality, and medicine [Sloan, 1999 Lancet]
Religion, Spirituality & Medicine [Richard Sloan's follow-up, the lead author of a recent article in the prestigious medical journal Lancet cautioning physicians not to prescribe religion as medicine. This study was published prior to the Duke study in 1999]
"Linking religious activities and better health outcomes can be harmful to patients, who already must confront age-old folk wisdom that illness is due to their own moral failure. Within any individual religion, are the more devout adherents 'better' people, more deserving of health than others? If evidence showed health advantages of some religious denominations over others, should physicians be guided by this evidence to counsel conversion? Attempts to link religious and spiritual activities to health are reminiscent of the now discredited research suggesting that different ethnic groups show differing levels of moral probity, intelligence, or other measures of social worth. Since all human beings, devout or profane, ultimately will succumb to illness, we wish to avoid the additional burden of guilt for moral failure to those whose physical health fails before our own."
The relationship between religion/spirituality and physical health, mental health, and pain in a chronic pain population. [Pain patients' religious and spiritual beliefs appear different than the general population (e.g. pain patients feel less desire to reduce pain in the world and feel more abandoned by God). Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed significant associations between components of religion/spirituality and physical and mental health. Private religious practice (e.g. prayer, meditation, consumption of religious media) was inversely related to physical health outcomes, indicating that those who were experiencing worse physical health were more likely to engage in private religious activities, perhaps as a way to cope with their poor health. Forgiveness, negative religious coping, daily spiritual experiences, religious support, and self-rankings of religious/spiritual intensity significantly predicted mental health status. Religion/spirituality was unrelated to pain intensity and life interference due to pain]
Spirituality in health: the role of spirituality in critical care
Analysis of Lancet article, by FFRF
Reality check

Huh, whattya know? Maybe your "facts" are a little off? Maybe the fact that longevitiy studies and infant mortality studies and teen pregnancy and abortion rates and murder rates were ALL directly correlated to increased religiosity in western democracies never caught your attention? Well, let me help you out:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Whattya know? The countries with the highest number of atheists just so happen to have lower murder rates, teen pregnancies, abortions, infant mortality, and longer longevity. Maybe you should do some reading ;)

Some "pro-religious" sources [older]:
Science & Theology News
Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine: How Are They Related and What Does it Mean? [by Koenig, author of flawed study, 2001]
Religious Involvement, Spirituality, and Medicine: Implications for Clinical Practice [Mueller, 2001]
Note that Mueller was the lead author of the recent study confirming that intercessory prayer does nothing:
Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer [April 2006]

What kind of sick morality would put false hope in the heads of many? Worse still, confirmed by Mueller's recent study, those people who knew they were being prayed for did worse than those who weren't prayed for at all. Perhaps it's the problem of linking morality with health? Perhaps you don't know any better. Perhaps those who derived their sick morality from a God who kills babies [cf 1 Sam 15:3, Num 31] can't see the problem in foisting false hopes and lies on others for the sake of propping up this god's popularity?

A Serious Question

I received this serious question via e-mail and I'm quite busy today, so I'll throw it up for serious discussion, although it's already being discussed in the post below this one.

I'm a christian who has become quite skeptical. An honest doubter, as you might say. As an elder in an evangelical church and one who has been a passionate lay bible teacher and defender for 13 years, this is a difficult time for me.

For me, the one thing that keeps me from rejecting the whole thing is this: the testimony of the apostles. Why would a dozen men give up everything they had, and, for all but one, their very lives, for their proclamation of the risen Christ? I can see why a modern radical islamic "martyr" would give his/her life for their beliefs. They have simply been deceived into believing something that isn't true. The case is much different for Jesus's apostles, though. If what they proclaimed was not true, they would have been the very ones who fabricated and propagated this vicious lie. Why would they give their lives for something they *knew* very well was a lie (if indeed it were a lie)?

I'm curious what answers you could offer or where you could direct me to read them.