Are Marriage Vows Immoral?

We are repeatedly informed that the God of Christianity has absolute morals. Yet when we review the claims made about morality within the Christian world, we are often left scratching our heads. Clearly the claimed system of God’s absolute morality is nothing like what we think of as humans, and we puzzle and puzzle over what gets priority in this God’s world.

We think that genocide and the killing of baby boys is always immoral, but in this absolute morality of the Christian God, apparently at times it is morally acceptable. Numbers 31:17, Judges 20:48, and 1 Samuel 15:3. We think that murderers should be punished, not excused. And most certainly that their infant son should not be killed for their crime. 2 Sam. 12:15. But this is what is required in this absolute Christian God Morality scheme.

And we are told that the times of the Tanakh were different, and God related to the people in a different manner, imposing a different morality. (Sounding like a morality based on relativism, not being absolute.)

Taking just one example--Why did God change His position on taking vows? Did He discover that there is some scale of morality which allows a vow-taker to supercede other moral laws?

God, in the form of Jesus, makes His position on vows very clear. Don’t. “I say to you, do not swear at all.” Matthew 5:34. This is a change from what God had previously stated in Mosaic Law.

Under Moses, if one made a vow, there were certain requirements. Such as: they must not delay in performing it. Deut. 23:21. God even provided for a priority of vows, in that a woman could be overruled by her father or husband. Numbers 30:5 & 8. If a man makes a vow, he cannot break it, but must complete it. Num. 30:2

Following the imposition of the Mosaic Law, we have instances of people swearing to do things that are bound by them. Spies to Rahab the Harlot. Joshua 2:12. David to Saul. 1 Sam. 24:22. David to Bathsheba. 1 Kings 1:13. All of Israel. Ezra 10:5. On this last one, God was upset because they swore falsely, which was a problem. Jer. 5:2

Evidently taking vows was not only contemplated by God’s morality, it was regulated, and enforced. God did state that taking a vow would never be mandatory (Deut. 23:22) but one had the option. Until God said “Do not swear at all” in the Sermon on the Mount. (I have seen it argued that this is not a change in Mosaic Law. It most certainly is! Prior to Jesus, one could or could not take a vow, but if one did, there were certain limitations. After Jesus, one cannot take a vow. Period. That is a change.)

The author of James definitely got the memo, and reiterates God’s new commandment. (James 5:12.) The author of Hebrews apparently missed the new commandment and wrote about taking oaths as still acceptable. (Heb. 6:16) The author of Acts was absent that day, so they, too, seemed to think that God’s morality still provided for taking vows. (Acts 18:18 and 21:23)

Did God’s morality regarding taking vows change? Did something happen where God decided that swearing to do something was not such a good idea, and based upon new information, did away with it altogether?

I can’t help but wonder when God imposed the new rule on swearing, He was thinking about Jephthah and how poorly THAT all turned out.

Jephthah had a Gileadite father, but his mother was a whore. So all the legitimate Gileadites, in what has been unfortunately historical for Christian morality, threw him out of the community-- not based on what he did, but on something over which he had no control. (How Jephthah was to blame for who his mother was is beyond anyone’s guess. Still, he gets the punishment for his Mother’s occupation.)

It turns out that Jephthah was a big, strapping fellow, and being a courageous outcast, attracted a number of other outcasts, into an army. The Gileadites became threatened by the Ammonites. They needed Jephthah’s army. Again, in typical Christian manner, when Jephthah was needed, his heritage became no longer an issue, and the elders of Gilead swore to not only accept him, but to make him their leader. Despite the fact his mother was a whore.

Jephthah agreed to fight the Ammonites. He had an army and the support of his old community, although he lacked the support of the other tribes of Israel.

But Jephthah wanted more. An Edge. A Nudge. He makes a vow. If God would provide him the victory over the Ammonites, Jephthah swore upon arriving home, to provide as a burnt offering to God whatever comes out of his door.

And tragedy occurs. God provides the victory. And the first thing that meets Jephthah when he comes home is his only child—his daughter. Jephthah immediately realizes what he must do, and with wisdom beyond her years, his daughter (we never know her name) says, “You made an oath. You have to keep it. Do what you have to do.”

Jephthah is bound by his oath, and sacrifices his daughter. Now, in our humanistic determination, we would find this act immoral. While breaking an oath is assuredly not encouraged, it can be remedied here without the necessary loss of life.

Somehow, in this absolute morality proposed by the Christian viewpoint, breaking an oath is MORE immoral than killing an innocent child. If I swear to God if He gives a good parking spot, I will break the arms of my son—is it a greater sin to not break his arms upon getting right next to the handicap spot?

Is this why God, in the form of Jesus, decides to do away with swearing altogether, since He realized (upon becoming human) the ludicrous notion that keeping an oath is more important than human life or harm? But if God is changing his mind as to what is moral for humans, we end up with a non-absolute moral system in which to work. Just as secular humanists attempt to frame a moral system, and persuade others of its viability, the Christian is equally attempting to guess at what God wants humans to do and persuade others of the viability. We are no different—you and I.

[A side note for which I apologize, but it will come up, so I might as well head it off as best I can now.

Apologists typically argue that Jephthah did not actually kill his daughter, but rather devoted her to the Lord. The arguments in favor of this claim are:

1. Mosaic Law did not allow for human sacrifice.
2. Jephthah’s daughter’s response.
3. Other children (Samuel) were devoted to the Lord similarly.

The arguments against this claim are:

1. Mosaic Law is not clear about human sacrifice.
2. Jephthah’s response.
3. The “Festival of Lament.”

It leaves us in a bit of a quandary. I think the strongest argument against her being killed is in her recorded response. Upon learning the vow, she asks for a two-month reprieve (violating Deut. 23:21) to grieve over the fact that she will never lose her virginity. After it is recorded in the cryptic “Jephthah did what he vowed to do” we receive the further notation that she never had sex.

It seems odd (unless there was some cultural significance to this) that upon learning she would die, her biggest concern was that she would never get to have sex. While sex is great, at the moment, we would think dying would have a much higher focus of her attention. Further, if she was killed, the phrase, “And she never knew any man” become superfluous. Like saying, “Jephthah killed her, and on, by the way, she missed Yom Kippur next year.”

However, on the flip side, Jephthah’s reaction is extreme, if she was devoted to the Lord. Apologists claim that this is because his lineage would end (as she was an only daughter.) Why? There is nothing to indicate that Jephthah could not have any more children. This was a time of multiple wives. Of kidnapping other people’s daughters to bear children. (Judges 21:21) The Judge before Jephthah had 30 sons and (coincidently) the Judge after Jephthah also had 30 sons.

Jephthah had no inheritance (whore’s son, remember) and the story of his possessions is questionable. (Lived in Tob, but his house is listed in Mizpah.) There is no indication, and it is pure speculation, that Jephthah had any interest in continuing his lineage.

The passage records that each year, the daughters of Israel held a four-day event in which they recounted, or rehearsed the story of Jephthah’s daughter. (The word “lament” in the KJV is bad translation. Sorry.) Not even Samuel got that, and he was devoted, too! The impression left here is more of a tragedy along the lines of a death, rather than a life of servitude.

Mosaic Law does not help the apologist. According to Leviticus 27:3, if a person is consecrated by vow, they can be redeemed by payment to the priest. Jephthah would have had to pay 10 shekels to save her. (Lev. 27:5) A two-month lament? Tearing of clothes? After saving Gilead, we would think Jephthah could spring 10 shekels to save her.

BUT, Lev. 27:28 says no devoted offering may be redeemed. Worse, Lev. 27:29 says that one devoted to destruction could not be redeemed, but must be put to death. What is “devoted to destruction?” If the apologist claims that Jephthah’s daughter was not to be killed but was devoted to be the equivalent of a burnt offering, it would certainly seem feasible that Lev. 27:29 still mandates her death.

But Deut. 18:10 prohibits having one’s sons or daughters “pass through fire” which is claimed to be an idiom of child-sacrifice. Deut. 18:10 doesn’t say anything about fulfilling vows, though.

The best part of Christian “absolute” morals is that there are so many conflicting statements. If Jephthah devoted his daughter can he redeem her? “Yes”—Lev. 27:3, or ”No”-Lev. 27:28. If she was devoted to destruction, must she be killed? “Yes” – Lev. 27:29, “But not by fire” – Deut. 18:10. But Jephthah vowed a burnt offering. Which means, regardless of the apologetic position, he either breaks his vow, or breaks Mosaic law.

Under God’s “absolute morals” what is worse? See—we don’t know! It is all up to argument, and persuasiveness. Just. Like. Relative morals.

My resolution to the problem: I am convinced that Mosaic Law did not develop until the period of the divided kingdoms. The story of Jephthah is a legend from a time prior to Mosaic Law in which a Canaanite sacrificed his daughter in thanks for a victory. His story was incorporated in the Hebrew culture, and then made sanitized and made cryptic by removal of the actual sacrifice.)

As I read the tale of Jephthah, I can’t help but reflect on King David’s similar situation. King David committed murder (perhaps) but certainly adultery—a crime punishable by death. Yet in this Christian morality scheme, there appears to be an out. An exception. Regardless of the immorality or morality of an action, God can impose mercy, and exempt the person from punishment.

What is so “absolute” about that? We have an arbitrary determination of who gets exempted from punishment. Further, God, within this scheme of mercy, can inflict death as a punishment for this crime on another person! (See also “David’s Census.”)

At least with King David, we see that he did something wrong. There is nothing recorded that Jephthah did immoral. There is no reason why God could not have intervened, provided mercy, and saved the daughter. When asked “Why didn’t God?” all that can be said is, “We don’t know.”

Exactly. This system of “absolute morality” has introduced an arbitrary factor (God) in which we can no longer determine when they will step in, when they will not, nor the results. We see that God changes His mind about the morality of vows. We have no information as to the priority of morals—which is more important: death or keeping a vow or following the law?

Although it is not the sole issue with the concept of absolute morality, in this area what I see is one being absolutely ground in arbitrary:

Naturalist: As there is no way for us to determine absolute morality, we must determine it as best we can with what we have.
Christian: Ah—but we have Absolute Morality!
Naturalist: Grounded in what?
Christian: God.

Naturalist: And what is God’s morality?
Christian: As there is no way for us to determine God’s morality, we must determine it as best we can with what we have.
Naturalist: And this is different from me….how?

Minister Sentenced for Sexually Abusing Women

Along with Catholic molester priests there are a whole host of evangelical ministers and pastors who abuse people sexually. Just recently one was sentenced to prison for this. See here. What do you Christians makes of this? Ministers commit adultery, molest children, sexually abuse women, pilfer money from the church, and so on. Pastors are supposed to be the best examples of Christianity, but they don't seem any better than any other Christians. Why is this? Where is the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives? Why is it that Christianity is the only religion that claims a creator God (via the Holy Spirit) takes up "residence" in the life of the believer but it doesn't produce people who act any better than anyone else, especially its pastors?

Did Darwin Lead to Hitler?

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Cultural Wars recently wrote about the supposed connection between Darwin and Hitler. He concluded: The bottom line, and I do not think I'm being too strident in using this language, is that this simplistic "Darwin led to Hitler" thesis is laughably ridiculous. It simply cannot be taken seriously by anyone with even a minimal amount of historical knowledge and the ability to reason. See here.

George Carlin is a Sun Worshipper

Did you know George Carlin is a sun worshipper? This is funny. He's very good. How does he get away with this in a Christian dominated society?

The 47th Carnival of the Godless

The 47th Carnival of the Godless is up with something in it from DC.

The Necessity of Atheism

Over at Ebon Musings there is an essay on The Necessity of Atheism where one can find a brief summary of the core justifications for atheism. It's pretty good, but it doesn't allow for any discussion. So let's discuss it here. What do you think?

There IS Reason to Hope

Thanks to Ed Babinski for tipping me off to two recent articles from the National Secular Society, for they filled me with hope for our future this morning: Australian Youth Follow The Secular Trend, and Spanish Youngsters Have Had It With Religion, Too. From the articles (also see here):

Australian Youth Follow The Secular Trend
Aug. 11, 2006

Less than half Australia’s young people say they believe in a god, and many believe there is little truth in religion, a new study has found. The three-year national study, a joint project between Monash University, the Australian Catholic University and the Christian Research Association, found many young people live an entirely secular life.

The study, The Spirit of Generation Y, found just 48 percent of those born between 1976 and 1990 believed in a god. Dr Andrew Singleton of Monash University, a co-author of the study, said they were surprised by the findings. "It’s well known that there has been a turn away from church attendance and participation in young people," he said. "But we thought there was going to be a move towards alternative spiritualities. There are still a number turning towards it, but not as big as you would have thought."

Religious identity will be among the questions contained in this year’s Australian census. We see the same effect in this census as in the UK census, when 72% of people said they were Christian, even though every other survey and poll showed this to be vastly over-stated. This was because of poor wording of the question.

The Australian survey found 20 percent of young people did not believe in a god and 32 percent were unsure. It also found just 19 percent of those who identify themselves as Christian was actively involved in a church (attending services at least once a month). More than 30 percent of Generation Y was classified as "humanists," rejecting the idea of a god, although some believed in a "higher being."

Dr Singleton said it was a trend that was likely to continue. "We live in a very individualistic and self-orientated society and I don't see a lot of things challenging that," he said. “One of the many predictors of whether we become religious is our parents, and unless there is a massive cultural shift, I see that the trajectory will continue as it is."

Spanish Youngsters Have Had It With Religion, Too
Aug. 11, 2006

A poll of 1,450 young people in Spain shows that most believe that religion is of little importance and has no place in schools. The survey of people aged 15 to 29 shows that attitudes have changed radically since the era of the dictator Franco. Then, homosexuality was banned. Now gay marriage is legal, with 80 percent of those who were asked agreeing with the change in the law.

More than two thirds of those polled said they were in favor of abortion (legalized in Spain in 1985) and 76 percent said they approved of euthanasia "to help someone suffering from an incurable disease if they asked for it." A third declared themselves non-believers, with the majority of the remainder stating that religion had little relevance in their lives.

Although this will be good news for the socialist government of José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, it will cause yet more angst among the Catholic hierarchy who have traditionally held enormous power in Spain.
________________
Technorati tags: Secularism

Truth in Advertising Laws Should Apply to Christian Propaganda!

One of my favorite atheist sites is Daylight Atheism, where if you click on the link you'll see one reason why. The question addressed is why truth in advertising laws are not applied to Christian propoganda. A great question!

Ed’s Side of the Frank Walton-Ed Babinski Story

I first learned about Frank Walton’s “Atheism Sucks” website from J. P. Holding’s “Tekton” website that mentioned it as something worth a peek. I peeked and saw that Frank had created an expanded homage to J.P. Holding’s “Trophy Room” (a room at Holding's website where he lists those whom he imagines he has “defeated” in debates, so basically what Holding has done is hand trophies to himself--can anyone say "narcissist?"). And though Frank could have constructed a homage to J.P. Holding in the form of cataloging and listing what he agrees are J.P. best pro-Christian arguments, instead, Frank denigrates Holding's debate opponents, photoshops them and calls them names. His frequently employed monikers for me include "stanky breath," "most wacked out atheist" [forgetting that I am not an atheist but an agnostic], and "narcissist." J.P. Holding praised Frank for calling me "stanky breath," perhaps because their levels of wit and humor are similar.

Frank also posts photographs of the prison (or one near enough like it) in which J. P. Holding was formerly employed as a librarian, along with images of some of the inmates with whom Holding may have rubbed elbows. Frank suggested that anyone who sought knowledge of who the pseudonymous Mr. “J. P. Holding” was, and who broadcast such knowledge on the internet was endangering Mr. Holding.

I agree that publishing such knowledge on the internet might indeed put Holding in danger. I also read that one inmate told J. P. Holding that if he ever met him on the street, he'd kill him. (Though that makes one curious as to whether anything J.P. said or did in the presence of that inmate could have led up to such a threat. Holding has not said anything about that further question.) On the matter of fearing death in general, Christians are taught to "fear not him who can kill the body, but fear him who can cast both body and soul into hell." So maybe playing up one's fear of being killed is not a perfect witness to J. P. Holding's or Frank Walton's faith, but simply illustrates a human/humanistic concern/fear.

Of course if J. P. Holding thought it was vital above all to maintain his anonymity, why get involved in one of the most controversial of subjects, religion? Why spend countless hours, eventually quitting his job to go full time, so he could challenge, provoke, and engage in a multitude of online debates 24-7 (many of them including some form of verbal heat)? Why volunteer to be featured in Christian apologetics videos on Youtube.com? On the other hand I remain hopeful that J.P. Holding will continue to open up and share with his readers the story of his spiritual and intellectual journey.

Having read hundreds of testimonies and books by people entering and leaving a multitude of different "folds" (and having wrestled with putting my own recollections and knowledge in perspective via composing such a piece and editing a book of nearly 3 dozen such testimonines, a third of which consisted of people who remained Christians but who grew more moderate-liberal in their views, see the book, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists), I have come to appreciate self-examination as an important tool that helps a person gain persepective concerning all they knew and now know, and which helps them (and others who read their stories) to learn things about themselves and their kinship with others, things that they might not have suspected prior to such an endeavor.

All that being said, I was curious after peeking at Frank Walton's "Atheism Sucks" website, and wanted to learn about his testimony as well, since as I said, I have read many first hand accounts over the past three decades from people who enjoyed talking about their journeys of mind and soul, and I continue to find something particularly intriguing about learning how and why people undergo changes and in what ways. I also work at a college and had read at Holding (or Frank’s sites) that the latter was attending college, so I asked him which college. One can read the first email I sent Frank along with his reply and further exchanges that date from April 4th to May 5th 2005, here, at Frank’s website.

For the Record as Frank shows at his own website, I sent him
1 email on Apr. 4th, waited for his reply, and he replied.
1 email on Apr. 5th, waited for his reply, and he replied.
1 email on Apr. 6th, waited for his reply, and he replied.
1 email on Apr. 8th, waited for his reply, and he replied.
1 email on Apr.11th, waited for his reply, and he replied.
1 email on May 4th, waited for his reply, and he replied.
1 email on May 5th, waited for his reply, though I don’t have a record of him replying directly to me via email to that one, he later did leave at least one message on the guestbook of my website, sometime before or on May 23rd to announce that he'd completed a web article about me.

Notice that I originally sent him 7 emails in the space of 30 days (something he apparently refers to in his memory as "countless," and he replied to all six of them. Apparently his message sent to my guestbook boasting of his creation of a web article about me constituted his seventh reply. So he replied to all seven of them.

Frank also claimed that I was "uploading my anger" at him, but I simply asked him a few questions, and challenged his view that "atheism sucks" via examples. My "anger" was neither visible nor relevant. Neither did he tell me at that time to cease emailing him, but rather told me to "keep hacking."

It was weeks after May 5th that I contacted Frank and sent him a few brief emails, and without anger. (Brief ones with some information I found interesting and that he designates as "unrelated topics and links" though they were related to questions of religious belief/non-belief). Those emails were also sent to friends other than Frank, none of whom complained of having received them except Frank. He told me at that time to cease sending him emails, which I promptly did, and his own website, last I looked, stated that it had been "over 500 days" since he had received any sort of unsolicited email from me. Ergo, Frank lies about me being the "ultimate spammer," it's quite the reverse, and in fact it would be nearer the truth to say Frank is both a slanderer and spammer. See below for more details.

NOTE: I will not try to say I am always and in every way totally in the right, because people have different perceptions and interests even when it comes to information one person is curious about and that the other couldn't care less about, or is insulted to read about. So I apologized to Frank a while back for sending him those brief unsolicited emails, and as I said, I ceased sending them when he told me to cease. At a later time I even apologized at length to Frank, and to Glenn Morton--whom I never "stalked" but who had been put on an email list by someone else, and I was also on the same list, so my replies were being sent to "all" on the list--furthermore after I re-joined Theology Web forums, I sent Glenn and over ten other people a private email introducing myself, the same email sent to all, which was friendly in tone. Glenn took offense at that time, and was the one who incorrectly assumed I was "stalking" him for having joined Theology Web. However it was J.P. Holding who invited me to join Theology Web. Both Glenn and even Frank accepted my apologies at first. And Glenn suggested that Frank forgive me as well and concentrate on better things. Frank however, did not take Glenn's suggsestion, but intensified his attempts at his blog of personal intimidation. See below.)

If I may apologize yet again for all to read, I regret and apologize for having pursued my curiosity (about such things as Frank's journey of mind and soul) further than Frank’s patience would allow. I suggested that it was not even necessary for him to share personal details that might give away his name or location or church, but that I wanted to hear about what motivated him, what his journey has been like in general. He replied to my inquiries in an increasingly agitated fashion, and claimed that I was "angry" and invited me to "hack some more," and then he went into high insult mode designing a web article as his next "reply," and sent me unsolicited emails at my website letting me know where his article may be found. The article featured our initial 7 emails and my photo with arrows pointing to my mouth coupled with Frank's lowbrow verbal insults.

After seeing the web article he'd produced about me with my photoshopped picture, I didn't respond in kind but merely sent Frank some of the brief emails mentioned above, that contained maybe a link or two on topics of interest that I was also sending to some friends. I should have ceased contact with him earlier (but to be truthful I remained curious about his further reactions at this point).

Frank sent me approximately fifteen unsolcitied emails, all in one twenty-four hour period on May 25th 2005, to which I only sent one email in reply on that same afternoon, saying, “Frank buddy, I don't mind receiving emails from you, but could we switch to my home email? I used my work email when I wrote you originally because that's where my webmaster contacted me about your guest book message and so I emailed you from work. I have to remember myself to use my home email in future,” after which Frank started sending his unsolicited emails to BOTH my work and home email boxes.

Frank also posted both my home and work email addresses on his website with this note:

“[W]henever we get junk email we do Babinski the pleasure of forwarding it to him. As a matter of fact, readers, if you ever feel like using Babinski’s email for whatever reason (use it for spam; or send him Bible verses - one verse at a time, one day at a time; or send him an article about whatever topic; or send him an email with nothing in it, etc.); you can go ahead and use it...”

Of the 15 emails Frank sent me during a single 24-hour period May 25th 2005, I deleted the ones that simply consisted of chapters of Genesis and Philippians. But I saved the ones with personalized subject lines that Frank wrote. Here they are (to conserve space I’m only including the headings, subject lines and time sent, and only presenting 9 of the original that approximately totaled 15). Note some of the things Frank wrote in the SUBJECT lines below:

----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:45:48 AM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: Phillipians chapter 3
To: ed babinski
Attachments: Attach0.html 6K

----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:46:23 AM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: Phillipians chapter 4
To: ed babinski
Attachments: Attach0.html 6K


----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:29:02 AM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: Have you also seen this movie?
To: ed babinski
Attachments: Attach0.html 1K


HERE’S WHERE I SENT FRANK MY REQUEST TO NO LONGER USE MY WORK EMAIL ADDRESS, BUT INSTEAD USE MY HOME EMAIL ADDRESS:
----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 10:39:16 AM
From: ed babinski
Subject: Frank buddy, could we switch to my home address?
To: Frank Walton

----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:30:24 PM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: Stanky mouth, here's Genesis chapter 1
To: ed babinski [Frank’s nickname for my home address]
leonardo3@msn.com
Attachments: Attach0.html 27K


----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:39:50 PM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: more stanky breath tips... hope it helps
To: ed babinski
ed blabinski [Frank’s nickname for my home address]
Attachments: Attach0.html 4K


----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:41:20 PM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: stanky mouth, here's Genesis chapter 2
To: ed babinski
ed blabinski [Frank’s nickname for my home address]
Attachments: Attach0.html 20K


----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:42:36 PM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: an update from tektonics.org
To: ed babinski
ed blabinski [Frank’s nickname for my home address]
Attachments: Attach0.html 54K
THE MESSAGE FRANK INCLUDED WITH THIS EMAIL BEGAN WITH THE WORDS: “Requiem for a Blockhead” [an article by Holding]

----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:53:51 PM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: hi sewer breath, here's another
To: ed babinski
ed blabinski [Frank’s nickname for my home address]
Attachments: Attach0.html 22K

----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:54:48 PM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: [No subject, but it was Genesis, chapter 4]
To: ed babinski
ed blabinski [Frank’s nickname for my home address]
Attachments: Attach0.html 20K

DURING THE SAME TWENTY-FOUR PERIOD DURING WHICH I REC'D THE BARRAGE OF EMAILS FROM FRANK, I ALSO REC’D THE FOLLOWING EMAIL FROM A DEVOUT EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN IN THE MILITARY IN IRAQ, SOMEONE I’VE KNOWN A BIT LONGER THAN I’VE KNOWN FRANK WALTON

----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 at 8:58 AM
From: Timothy T.
Subject: About that photo of me at atheismsucks.com, funny story
To: ed babinski
Hey Ed.
Just to show you that I do read your postings from time to time, I'm going to take advantage of a lull in the battle rhythm here to answer some of your recent posted statements and articles.But first: Nice picture. [Referring to the photo of me at Frank's website.—E.T.B.] And yes, “Atheism Sucks” is indeed too confrontational. Our goal is to try and draw people in by our love and sound reason. I doubt very seriously if J.R.R. Tolkein could have finally gotten the atheist C.S. Lewis to see the truth of Christianity if he had opened with “Hey Clive, you suck!”
Tim

I replied the next day to Timothy T., saying, “It was not a photo snapped for my website. I was taken by a photographer at work when I was asked to make a one-line comment about a topic that I found funny. I was asked what I thought about Furman Univ. possibly building a retirement village on the campus: I answered: ‘Does this mean that there will be no more benches for the students to sit on? Won’t the old folks be using them to feed the pigeons? Yes, I know that there are currently no pigeons on campus, but when the old folks come won’t the pigeons follow?’ And as for your remark that ‘Atheism Sucks’ is too confrontational, I feel the same way, and always felt that way as a Christian too, when evangelizing others, especially one on one. I suspect that folks as confrontational as Frank Walton (at atheismsucks.com) are being deliberately confrontational to avoid confronting what they fear most, i.e., atheists/atheism. If you can turn such people away from you right from the start, then you have avoided getting to know them as persons, or getting to see anything of value in them or anything they say. There is a discussion over at tweb involving Christians who disagree or agree with Frank's tactics. I recently joined in, and even cited your comment above, just identifying you as ‘Tim.’]

Frank also contacted Glenn Morton who held a grievance against me, yet even Glenn did not agree with the lengths to which Frank had gone to insult me, and told Frank that he had forgiven me and suggested Frank do the same.

From May 25th to July 30th 2005--I exchanged a dozen comments with both Walton and Holding in a forum thread on Theology Web titled, “Confrontational Apologetics” that was begun by Matthew. My posts in that thread between those dates can be read if you click on my profile page here (my tweb name is Babaloo), and then click on “Find All Posts By Babaloo,” and scroll down by the date where they begin, till you get to May 25th 2005 and click on it. In that thread I posted portions of the Bible in response to Frank’s note of absolute confidence that he "didn’t see anything in Scripture" regarding how non-confrontational a Christian ought to ideally be.

And instead of dealing with the Scriptures, Frank cited my photo, my breath, and what he perceived to be my grotesquely evil behavior, anything rather than explain why he denied that those particular verses had anything to do, in his opinion, with how confrontational a Christian ought ideally to be.

Those verses certainly appeared to have some connection with the question of “Confrontational Apologetics,” which was the topic of the thread that both Holding and Frank were studiously ignoring. In that same thread Holding told me, “You are so danged stupid it hurts.” While Walton wrote “At least he [Holding] has fans!" [unlike me, supposedly--E.T.B.] So I mocked back, saying, “They cloak themselves in darkness and spend each day creating cartoon voodoo doll images of ‘unbelievers’ to poke verbal pins in, and congratulate themselves for winning imaginary ‘Trophies’ in debate [something J.P. Holding does].” I also pointed them toward some of my fan mail.

To be sure, I am far from being the only person to have ever been insulted by Frank. See for instance a post that Frank wrote about Reginald Finley: "Proof that Reginald Finley is a complete loser" (http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2005/09/proof-that-reginald-finley-is-complete.html) [edited to break link, copy & paste if you want to see it]

I emailed Reginald to see whether he’d seen Frank’s post and received this reply, “Yes. Frank used to come to my site and attack me directly. However he has backed off my site since one of my members posted his home address and we caught him in too many lies to count on my forum.”

In August 2006 Frank sent me an unsolicited email directing me to one of his blog entries titled, "Is Ed Babinski a Homophobe?" He said my use of the words "gay atheist" to describe a blogger called "The Discomfiter" was akin to homophobia. But "The Discomfiter" was intentionally trying to imitate the persona of a "gay atheist." "The Discomfiter's" own blog profile read like this: "Industry: Fashion; Occupation: Interior Decorating; Interests: Refuting Christians...and remodeling Tuscan style villas." So based on "The Discomfiter's" own blogger profile I wrote that I was addressing the "gay atheist" blog owner of "Discomfiting Christianity" (And I put the words, "gay atheist," in quotation marks because I did not believe that "the Discomfiter" was gay nor an atheist, but that he was a Christian (as it turned out he was, Paul Manata) who was attempting to satirize both gays and atheists. So if anyone was "homophobic" it was The Discomfiter, not I. Frank apparently didn't read "The Discomfiter's" blogger profile or see from the rest of "The Discomfiter's blog" how the Christian disguised as a gay atheist was attempting to slander both.

In October, 2006, Frank added to his blog for Monday, October 23, 2006, something titled, "Ed Babinski Exposed - see, we told you so!" which consists of an email from a new employee at the university where I work who said they met me once and upon meeting me suspected I might be a "child molester." So Frank also publishes mere innuendos if they are insulting.

Unfortunately for Frank, I recall the event, the circumstances and know who made the remark. An employee who works in a non-library office (the library includes offices of non-library departments), had been invited along with other new employees to a morning coffee break so as to meet everyone else in the library. I had not seen this employee at any previous coffee breaks in the library's main break room. Neither was this employee at my 50th-birthday surprise party that friends on the library staff arranged in a large lecture room (though there were non-library friends who attended, along with some funny birthday videos sent in by others I knew on campus). Therefore, I had had no prior contact with this person, none that I recall, prior to that morning break for new faculty and staff members. I asked several new staff and faculty members their names and took a pad to spell them correctly since their names have to be added to their mailboxes so my students can file the mail correctly. (All the mail including the latest journals, newspapers, catalogs, flows through my department) As for my mishearing this person's name and asking them to repeat it, I had completed a large morning's mail sort with my students, and arrived a little late to the break and hadn't had either breakfast nor coffee, so I grabbed a pen and a yellow post-it pad which was handy and began introducing myself.

Aside from this person's "suspicion" that they thought I might be a "child molester," their story states that I misheard their name and I misrepeated it. I do not have as acute hearing as I used to have, and it was a relatively small breakroom with plenty of people chatting away in it or passing out food. I simply wished to spell this person's name correctly on their post office box. Neither did I know she was married to another non-library department employee with whom I've had friendly discussions in the break room about a shared love of science fiction and fantasy books and films. So I was surprised upon recognizing this new person's last name, and realizing that this employee's spouse was working in an office close to his.

Thirdly, as for my relationship with fellow employees, they have requested I deliver humorous speeches on special occasions, including retirement speeches. The longest serving employee at Furman asked me personally to deliver her retirement speech, and I worked with my comedy duo friend Ryan and we came up with a great presenation that the audience loved. A dean of the colege who atteneded told me it was the funniest retirement speech he'd ever heard. And the retiree and her daughters thanked me profusely. On my 50th birthday the staff threw me a surprise birthday party that was simply overwhelming. I rec'd remails from former bosses and people I've worked with, that were read aloud. One former co-worker (whom I had roasted when she left) phoned me during the party to wish me well. Another sent me an email that said she still keeps a copy of the funny speech I wrote and delivered when she left Furman for a job in Florida. One person wrote and delivered a funny poem, another rewrote the lyrics to a Paul Simon song, making it read, "50 Ways to Work in Serials" and made it into a sing along that everyone joined in on, others purchased gift items that had turned 50-years-old just like me, items that included Play Doh and Yatzee, and presented me with them. They made banners with the things that happened the year I was born, the top ten songs and movies of that year and other top ten lists. I even rec'd an email from the library's former director. And my friend Ryan (who is my comedy buddy at work) made a video featuring interviews with professors and others on campus whom I knew who couldn't make that morning's party, and their comments were sweet and hilarious. It was a surprise party, and my boss took me to the room where everyone was waiting and they jumped out and shouted Happy Birthday. I was taken aback tremendously. I also have received birthday cards from a former boss on my birthday for years. I feel very fortunate to work where I do with such wonderful people.

Oh My Sweet...LORD!

Oh, Jesus H. Christ, how I wish this was only a joke, but it's apparently not:

The sort of guilt-by-association that comes by this must do more to motivate a believer to single-handedly dismiss Christianity, sheerly out of a desire to dissociate from such a travesty, than all the horrors of the Dark and Middle Ages combined.

HT: Pandagon
________________
Technorati tags: Godidiots

Impossible to Believe

I write this post after having read J.E. Holman's excellent post "Now what, Christian?" I want to share a simple and profound truth, a realization that I have come to grips with: faith is impossible for me. Many Christians, upon hearing this, might blink at me with disbelief, protest in denial, or simply try and dialouge with me in hopes of showing me that I have a faulty conception of what faith is. I recall talking with a fellow apostate, Robin, and telling her that it's impossible for me to believe.

First of all, I tried to believe. I sincerely did believe for a decade that the Bible was God's word, that Jesus Christ was his Son, and that Christ was crucified to atone for our sins and that he rose from the dead. I sincerely did believe in creationism, in biblical inerrancy, in the loving providence of God. But now I cannot. I cannot go back to believing in any of that again. I cannot go back through the agony of second-guessing God's motives with each passing prayer, wondering if this or that is a yes-or-no sign. I cannot muster the intellectual gymnastics needed to make creationism or inerrancy work. I cannot work consciously to edit my thoughts and make sure that they confirm to the will of God. For me, it's impossible for me to do that all again. Even if I absolutely wanted to, I don't have the energy, the willpower, or the mental gymnastics. I have seen inerrancy and creationism refuted and I am extremely confident that the resurrection never happened.

Some believers argue that I was never saved to begin with. Even if that's so, why didn't God save me at the age I sincerely thought I was saved.?Why did God let me go groping around in the dark suffering under the honest delusion that I really was saved? What kind of God of love would allow for that? How long was God determined to let me undergo the delusion before having me snap out of it? Why did God let me labor under this delusion for 10 years? This is what I don't understand. I wanted to believe. I wanted the closeness I sincerely believed that others had with God. I wanted God to speak to my heart the way other Christians said that God did to theirs. I wanted so desperately to hear the voice of God, just some indication that he was there and that he loved me.

I wonder the same of other members who left the fold. Why didn't God really save John Loftus to begin with and never let him go? Why did God keep his eternal arms around Ed Babinski or JE Holman? I also think of Robert M Price and Charles Templeton. Both Price and Templeton really did believe that they were saved. Biblical criticism hit Price's faith and withered at it until there was nothing left and the problem of pain and suffering hit Templeton's heart until his faith eroded. If both men were unsaved, why didn't God save them to begin with? If both men were, indeed, saved, then why didn't God work harder to keep them into the fold?

All I can think of is that the biblical God must be a cruel beast if he really does exist. These honest men, including myself, absolutely wanting to believe. And yet we cannot believe. It's impossible for me. I am sure it's the case for Price and it was for Templeton. I will gladly let Loftus and Babinski speak for themselves. If God saved us, why didn't he keep us? Or, why didn't God save us to begin with so we would never leave the fold? I ask the question for many Christians: why does God make faith impossible?

Matthew

Now What, Christian?

The year was 1995. I was just about to begin preaching school, and when so much was going right for me as I went through every day, tinged with anticipation of the good things that awaited me in the ministry, I was troubled. I wasn't just troubled, I was stumped, disarmed by what someone, an atheist, had asked me. I was an outgoing personal evangelist for ten months before this as I hit the ground running at my conversion to save a sin-sick, dying world. I was used to facing tough questions while "witnessing" to unbelievers, but as a certain young, un-intimidating, blond-haired man sat before me (an atheist whom my preaching friends thought I had a better chance at converting), I was stopped dead in my tracks.

They were wrong. Not only did I fail to convert him, but he asked a question that totally disarmed me and made us all squirm. I had no answer for it, no sharp retort that would make me, my friends, and our faith look cool and sophisticated.

"Well, I honestly don't believe in the bible or Jesus. I've tried but I can't, so what is one to do if they can't believe?" I had no answer for him. I had never faced this question before. After unsuccessfully making an argument from Pascal's Wager, I think I remember saying something to him, like "just keep trying and God will providentially show you."

"So in the mean time, if I die without believing, am I going to burn?", he asked. After a long pause, and with an embarrassed look on my face, I said, "Yes, you will, but I will pray for you that God will grant you the time to repent."

I felt terrible saying this. The atheist was very soft spoken. He was an almost speechless kid, not particularly well versed in argument or atheology. He just couldn't believe. Our church youth group had been stringing this guy along for a while, asking him to pray and sing and come to youth functions with us. He did, but it was all to no avail. We never could convert him.

Before our conversation ended, I was compelled to say something rude. I tried one last time to guilt-trip him with a disturbing, unsettling comment that would prod him into submission to the fearsome almighty. Since the Bible made it clear to "seek and ye shall find," and "to him who knocks, it shall be opened" (Matthew 7:7), and since Jesus and his word could never be wrong, this could only mean that this young man who struck me as nothing but sincere and forthright in his desire to believe, didn't really want to believe. His heart was captured by satan, and I had to help him break free. I knew I was really honoring my God by saying this to finish off our conversation, "Too bad you're choosing to burn in Hell then! 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.'" He sharply acknowledged my slightly aggressive tone and said, "So because I can't believe, I deserve to burn?" I backed off him with something soft, like, "Just remember that in the time it takes you to come to belief, you are still lost and will burn in hell if you die in the mean time, but I will keeping pray for you." I thought I could get him to believe out of fear. But instead of getting a rise out of him, he just calmly glanced around, collecting his thoughts, and said again, "Well, if I can't believe, I can't believe now, can I? Why should I burn for following my brain?" As the discussion continued, his honesty continued to shine right through, making me yet more uncomfortable. He kept on inquiring what to do since he couldn't believe.

Out of options and desperate to make a convert, I said again what so many preachers say, "Just try and live the Christian lifestyle first and faith will develop later." He just grinned, shook his head, assuring me it wouldn't work, got into his car, and drove off. I never saw him again, and I don't even remember his name, but I think of him from time to time.

My preaching friends and I jested amongst ourselves how sad it will be to see that man's poor soul burning in Hell. One of my friends said to me, "I hope the Lord causes something bad to happen to him so he will turn to God." I shutter to think how I actually found such a statement appropriate at the time!

Leaving this discussion, I was angry at myself for not having the convincing words to convert him. I was also angry at the preachers I looked up to for not giving me the proper arguments to win over a hungering soul. I lost out to the devil. I felt defeated and weak.

Just less than ten years later, I found myself in exactly this man's shoes. In the summer of 2003, my wife, still a staunch believer, commended my soul to hell. When we began to argue over my decision to leave the ministry, I asked my wife, "What am I supposed to do? I can't believe in theism anymore. I've tried." Her words, "Then you'll just have to go to hell!" Amazing the role reversals life puts us through, wouldn't you say?

To this very day, there is no Christian who can deal with this question. They are painfully disarmed by it, and I can see why. It hurts to be out of options, to see a problem and know you can't fix it.

I want to take this time and ask our Christian readers, what do we hellbound infidels do now that your apologetics have failed, and your arguments and testimonies proven ineffective in converting us back to the fold? We've prayed and cried, and reflected on our inner-selves. We've read and studied and meditated and reflected some more on our sinful, depraved consciences, now what? What if we are never providentially led back into God-belief as most atheists aren't? What if we breathe our last breaths as unbelievers, painfully thinking to ourselves, "But I can't believe!" What should we expect when we wake up in the next world? Fire? Torture? Darkness? Tumultuous agony for eternity? When all your quips and quotes, your testimonies and trilemmas, your apologetics and promises, have failed to pierce our targeted hearts, then what?

Should we be thinking about how in hell we'll finally have the faith we wanted here on Earth and finally got the answers we sought, but now it's too late? Should we be thinking about how we had the freewill to believe, if only we'd used it, even though we couldn't use it because we couldn't believe? Should we be thinking about what we will say to God, the angels, and our fellow condemned souls as we are ushered off to the empire of the damned?

Now what, Christian? What are we to do? Where are your answers now? What witnessing tool will you whip out to finish this job? What assurances, what hope can you give us?

(JH)

Welcome to the World of Christianity (by Harry McCall)

As a Christian, you are now following THE supreme God who created the universe. The main facts you need to know are these:

Your God is omnipotent (Having unlimited power and authority).
Your God is omnipresent (He is present everywhere).
Your God is omniscient (Having total knowledge).
Your God commands billions of angels of which just one could destroy the world.

As a Christian, you are part of a large and diverse group totaling over 2.1 billion members that has a worldwide budget that totals approximately one half of a trillion dollars.

Satan (a fallen angel) is your main and only adversary who leads a small rag-tag army (1/3 the size of God's) of fallen angels (demons).

Satan has limited power (Only what little control God gives him).
Satan has no earthly members (Just a few "Dabblers").
Satan has no budget.

AND YET...

According to God's own word, the Bible (especially the Book of Revelation), God, with all the above supreme attributes, is losing a battle He created and even sacrificed His only begotten son to win.

For instance, most of humanity will one day stand before your God at the Great White Throne of Judgment to "give an account" of why they as mortal sinful creatures with limited understandings, screwed up, and then they will be cast into a Lake of Fire (whose smoke rises forever), i.e., blamed for their loss of innocence and (and/or their great great great ancestor's loss of innocence) for all eternity.

HOW ARE WE TO MAKE SENSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE?

It is a divine Mystery. (A theological term employed by the Catholic Church to depict the lack of understanding we mere mortals have of God's ways.)

Harry McCall (former ministerial student, whose testimony appears in Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists)

P.S., Liberal Christians and universalists may disagree with some of the above "welcome" statements, however, Christian philosopher Victor Reppert at his blog, "Dangerous Idea" has tangled with the question of how a finite being like Satan could be racking up so many souls compared with God who has an infinite amount of resources and wisdom as His disposal.

More Chain-pulling for the Anti-Intellectualist Right

A free marketplace of ideas doesn't bode well for orthodox Christian beliefs. An article in the American Family Association Journal, "Colleges Turn Left, Students Think That's Right," concludes:

what students and parents don’t realize is that today’s campuses are functioning as an indoctrination into the realm of liberalism. As early as the 1790s, Yale college students were openly disavowing Christ. Despite periods of revival, the denial of Christian beliefs and the acceptance of secularism have persisted and gained strength through the years.

Surely not! Surely being in a place which encourages rational thinking and critical examination of evidence and truth values is good for Christianity, right? Apparently not:

J. Budziszewski wrote,

The trial everyone has heard about – but most people underrate – is the sheer spiritual disorientation of the modern campus...Methods of indoctrination are likely to include not only required courses, but also freshman orientation, speech codes, mandatory diversity training, dormitory policies, guidelines for registered student organizations and mental health counseling

My favorite take on how these things endanger and indoctrinate students in an anti-Christian way comes from PZ Myers:

Mental health counseling, though, I can see as dangerous to born-again Christians. It might make them sane.

All Budziszewski has done is spread more of the "Religious Liberty for Me, but not for Thee," approach. That is to say that since universities encourage students to tolerate the views of others, Christians benefit (they are tolerated and allowed to exercise religious freedom) but decry the benefit being given to the Muslim, Buddhist, atheist...etc.

Given the fact that universities are flooded with Christian campus groups and often are set in college towns which contain at least 1-10 Christian churches per thousand people ratio, I find it hard to believe that people like Budziszewski could be so dense as to cry that attending a university "indoctrinates" you. As if university students are isolated from family and friends, or are not allowed to attend as many worship services a week as they want, and pray as much as they want, and read their Bible as much as they want, etc.

In point of fact, this belies the weakness of the value system Budziszewski wants to protect: these students choose to lay aside the faith of their childhood to explore the world of ideas they discover. Some find the world too large for the narrow mind they brought with them to college, and grow out of it. Big surprise...

American students (esp those raised in Christian homes, which is who this article is about) are basically surrounded by Christianity and Christian culture from birth. The truth is that Budziszewski knows this, and he knows that the "disorientation" he declaims platitudes over is really "exposure to different thinking." Well, sorry, but that's the function and purpose of a university. The reason this exposure is so deleterious in the view of Budziszewski and Focus on the Family and others is the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of many of these selfsame Christian beliefs and values -- they are easily shown as such.

If you want your kiddies "safe" from the "dangerous" ideas, then you'd better not just homeschool them for high school, but "home college school" them too. There's no better way to ensure the survival of your religious views than to isolate your children from reality, such that the indoctrination of views you've exposed them to since birth is never challenged by competing worldviews. This article really underscores the saddest thing -- these people can't see that the fact that university education frequently leads to a deconversion, or change in views, is quite telling of their childrens' views in the first place. If your kids are brought up believing ignorant things, and you want them educated, then what in the hell do you expect?

If you don't want them to question the logic of basing their entire lives on the reliability of a dusty set of scrolls of unknown origins, you'd better not send them somewhere that encourages serious rational thinking. The college you pick had better not teach them modern chemistry, physics, biology, etc., or else they may start to be a bit incredulous about axe heads floating on water, global floods and bathtub arks, and people raising from the dead (just like in other myths they learn as myths). Perhaps Patriot University ("Dr." Dino's alma mater), or Pacific International University ("Dr." Baugh's alma mater)?

Another funny note is that the public universities suffered a reversal in this trend since the '80s, whereas Christian colleges cause more deconversions since the '80s.

(HT: PZ)
________________
Technorati tags: Culture Wars

The Sick Mind of a Lone Christian

Someone sick lone individual is sending emails to people with mine and Daniel Morgan's return email addresses on them. Ed Babinski pointed it out to me because he received something that had the official look of coming from me, but it didn't come from me. Then on a different blog someone commented using my name who made statements to the effect that I was a homosexual pedophile, and by clicking on my name it takes a person to my blogger profile. I was alarmed at this and immediately denied that such a comment came from me, but my comment was deleted, leaving the other comment falsely attributed to me to stand.

Deleting my comment when I denied what that false impersonator wrote can be traced to the blog owner, and this is what I strongly object to and should be condemned even if the site is a parody of mine by a Christian. That blog owner is Paul Manata.

"The Discomfiter," Christian History, Crazy Human Primate Species

Layman, Thanks very much for your comments concerning my recent post, Steve Hays of Triablogue, The Discomfiter, and Stephen Colbert. I shared the information about bad/crazy things religious people have done (and the craziness of the conflicting varieties of Christianities) simply in an effort to level the playing field when dealing with someone as crazy as "The Discomfiter" whom I assume to be a Christian in atheist clothing bent on showing how crazy atheists must be.

I was not condemning all Christians, nor would I suggest that a person should disbelieve in Christianity because of its failures. I disbelieved in Christianity after examining the Bible and also after acknowledging goodness, love, and wisdom in people other than Christians.

As for charity and Christianity, or for that matter, civilization and Christianity, there are diverse opinions. But most would agree that Christianity's contributions in the arts and sciences peaked a while back. Today anyone of any religion or none can produce wonderful music, or impressive scientific research.

As for health care/hospitals, it’s true, in the early 1800s, religion was still the monopoly provider. And the hospitals themselves were each devoted to preaching the religion of a specific religious sect, and could turn away whomever they wished on that basis, or forbid the sick from being visited by ministers or rabbis of a rival sect while at the hospital but had to endure preachments made by that sect’s ministers. Also in the early 1800s that system was failing—remember Dickens?—and the response came swiftly. Think of Florence Nightingale (a universalist Christian, a view others deemed heretical, who taught that hospitals should admit anyone regardless of beliefs and also allow them access to whatever minister or rabbi they wished), or think of the Red Cross (the American Red Cross was founded by Clara Barton a universalist Christian, while the International Red Cross was founded by Andre Dunant--a gay man), Jane Addams and Hull House. New kinds of private, nonprofit organizations sprang up, as did unprecedented forms of government activity. It’s worth noting that most of the replacement institutions were not “lifestance organizations.” They weren’t other churches or fraternal groups. Indeed, they tended not to be the kind of organizations that sorted their members by lifestance at all. In a word, they were secular.

Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who spent years in Africa as a doctor and helped publicize the plight of suffering Africans, was a liberal Christian and author of The Search of the Historical Jesus in which he concluded that Jesus was a man who preached that the world was going to end soon. And, Helen Keller (the woman who lost her sight and hearing to a bout with Scarlet Fever when she was very young, but who learned how to communicate via touch, and who proved an inspiration to generations of people suffering from severe disabilities) was both a Swedenborgian, and a member of the American Humanist Society.

TODAY, a vast number of charities (including organizations devoted to finding cures for diverse diseases) are secular, or of a non-Evangelical Christian variety. There is the American Cancer Society, The Heart Association, The Will Rogers Institute, and many others. There’s the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that Gates poured 30 billion into, and his friend Warren Buffet poured a little bit more than 30 billion into. (Both of those men being reticent and reluctant to connect themselves with religion.)

In fact, if it were not for a host of scientists, engineers and agriculturalists--who happened to be either lapsed churchgoers, unorthodox Christians, heretics, apostates, infidels, freethinkers, agnostics, or atheists--and their successes in the fields of agricultural and medical science, hundreds of millions would have starved to death or suffered innumerable diseases this past century. Those agricultural and medical scientists “multiplied more loaves of bread” and “prevented/healed more diseases” in the past hundred years than Christianity has in the past two thousand.

Likewise, TODAY, institutions of higher learning are mostly secular and non-Evangelical.

Richard Dawkins, an atheist, also has made a remark I find interesting: “If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference?” [quoted in The Guardian]

As for famous atheists who have been mass murderers, yes they have. But they were driven not only by selfish ideals, but also religious-like ones, like promises of a “worker’s paradise,” or a holy book be it a “Communist Manifesto,” or in the case of Maoism, a “Little Red Book” with “verses” his people had to memorize. Such ideals and practices seem to motivate human primates en masse. Absolute certainty is certainly a huge temptation. Add the fact that the states and churches of Europe pounded the message into people’s heads for centuries, “Obey!” People were fed up with that. And Marx was fed up with the system of state and church that was using and abusing people as interchangeable parts in factories, the same factories that Marx’s religious counterpart, William Blake called, “Satan’s mills.” As for Hitler and Stalin, apparently they both wanted to become priests in their youth. And Stalin it appears was well versed enough in the Bible to be aware of the story of the betrayal of Christ by someone near him, and killed anyone he feared might one day become his Judas. Mao arose during the confusion and upheavals of a World War. The Kymer Rouge I have read arose partly in response to America’s war in Vietnam, especially illegal secret bombing missions conducted by the U.S. on the Cambodian-Viet Nam boarder. What I’m saying is that the history of human primates on this planet seems to have explanations of complex and varied sorts.

I think we were lucky that when Europe was going up in flames during the wars between Christian nation-states following the Reformation, they didn’t have modern weaponry. That “Thirty Years War” has been compared to World War 1 without the modern weapons. Of course the Christian west had the advantage of guns and steel and was able to exert control over a lot of the world for a couple centuries (not to mention the advantages that the “germs” carried by westerners to the New World, brought the conquerors).

About serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, I read that he was raised Christian and in his youth attended a fundamentalist Christian school. He reverted back to his chilhood faith in prison. I’m sure his victims wished he had reverted sooner. Perhaps the portrayal in his school of atheists as evil teachers of total irresponsibility made him think that's all any atheist could or should be, and maybe he pawned off his own inclinations on "atheism," as an excuse, based on such teachings. Honestly, I don't know many atheists in America who would agree that a great way to make friends is to keep people's heads in your freezer.

The Apostle Paul’s use of Analogy

The Jewish historian Hyam Maccoby argues in his book “The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity” that Paul could not have been a trained Pharisee. He argues this through multiple lines of evidence, but one line of evidence that was interesting to me was that Paul did not reason carefully on many occasions. Maccoby thinks this indicates that Paul didn’t have Pharisaic training. One example he cites is the passage Romans 7:1-6.

¹Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? ²For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. ³So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

⁴So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. ⁵For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. ⁶But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Here Paul is making the analogy that when a husband dies; the wife is free to remarry. This is to illustrate how Christians are free from the law and can now be the bride of Christ. On one side of the analogy, we have a woman/bride, a deceased husband, a new bridegroom. On the other side we have the Christian (who died and was raised with Christ), the Torah, and Christ (who died and was raised).

But for the analogy to work, he needs to keep straight who is the widow and who is the deceased. In his illustration it was the husband’s death that made the wife free. But the Christian is the “Bride” and the Torah is supposed to correspond to the husband. The one who is free to remarry in the first scenario is the one who didn’t die. The Torah is the only thing in the second analogy that didn’t die. But he isn’t making a point about the Torah being free to take a new groom. In order for the analogy to hold the law has to be what died, not the bride and/or the groom.

Apparently Paul is introducing the idea that our own death frees us from the law. But if that is the case, why isn’t he talking about the freedom of the dead husband? Shouldn’t Paul have talked about how the husband is now free from the wife to make the analogy work? Of course, freedom usually entails the power to do something. Either to do what is desired or what we should be done. Power and freedom are not properties normally associated with the dead. (Of course zombie weddings probably would not be common experiences for Paul’s readers, so the correct illustration would have been difficult.)

This apparently confused analogy leads to several questions. If God were to inspire a collection of books, wouldn’t he want them to reflect his nature? If there is a God, I would expect his intellect would be much greater than ours, and he could certainly guide his servants to make clear arguments and analogies. Why shouldn’t flawed analogies and arguments disqualify Paul’s writings as scripture?

Steve Hays of Triablogue, The Discomfiter, and Stephen Colbert

On the Christian blog, "Triablogue," I found a thread titled, "The Discomfiter," that discussed a new blog of that name by someone who claims he has deconverted from Christianity and become an atheist seemingly overnight, but whose arguments are mere parodies of the atheistic types of arguments at "Debunking Christianity." After reviewing the blog of the "The Discomfiter," Steve Hays at "Triablogue," wrote, "The only plausible alternative is that The Discomfiter is legit, but out of his mind."

Is that the only "plausible" alternative? Maybe for Steve, who already views all non-Christians as insane in some sense in God's eyes, but anyone with a lick of commonsense could tell "The Discomfiter" was NOT legit from the start. Apparently Steve's legit-o-meter is broken. Makes me wonder whether he watches "The Colbert Report" and finds the "only plausible alternative" to be that Stephen Colbert is a genuine Right Wing fanatic?

If you need further evidence that "The Discomfiter" isn't legit listen to his radio interview on Unchained Radio where The Discomfiter imitates Jack Nicolson (or maybe Robert M. Price) and says that logic, time, and evil, don't exist, and adds, "poison can be harmless one day and deadly the next, that's how ruled by chance the cosmos is" (my paraphrase). The folks who "called in" were also "plants," with phony questions and phony personas like "The Discomfiter" himself. It was a total joke in a Stephen Colbert vein.

One irony this brings up however is the fact that unlike "crazy atheists" like "The Discomfiter," there's far more crazy Christian stories in the news, i.e., from people falling over themselves to see everyday objects that look like Jesus; to Christians being scammed out of billions via "religious affinity" scams (as reported in Christianity Today where the Christian investigator admits, "Religious scams are among the most common and Christians are easy targets.") See also Baptist Leaders Caught Fleecing the Flocks). Or see The North American Securities Administrators Association report, "Preying on the Faithful: The False Prophets of the Investment World," that describes one outfit that cited the blessing of the tribe of Asher by Moses in Deuteronomy that “the feet of the people will be bathed in oil” as the basis for drilling for oil. Or just google, "Preying on the Faithful." (I guess the Biblical promise that God will give "wisdom" to all who pray for it, doesn't work, because I bet a lot of scammed Christians first prayed to God asking whether they ought to hand over their money and signatures to these other folks or not. The scammers themselves are often Christians with far too much faith in both God's ability and their own to multiply monetary blessings for His brethren.)

Equally devastating are the stories of devout Christian heads of mega-corporations. Have you read about the ones involved in the two biggest corporate scandals in recent times, the heads of Enron and WorldCom. They were truly devout believers. Read the above pieces about their faith and belief in their Bible-God's directing hand by clicking on Enron and WorldCom.

Or have you read the latest articles chronicling Protestant ministers who abuse kids or other reports of clergy sexual abuse (even in the Boy Scouts, another firmly theistic group, whose history of abuse goes way back and who have obstructed the release of files on the matter), not to mention THE LARGEST CASE OF CHILD PROSTITUTION IN U.S. HISTORY, that involved Reverend Tony Leyva, Pentecostal TV-evangelist who used to wear a Superman costume and carry a Bible, nicknaming himself “Super Christian,” and who was in the Guinness Book of World Records (for four years) for preaching the longest known sermon (72 hours straight), and who was hired by a Georgia television station to replace Jimmy Swaggert’s show, was arrested by the FBI, along with three of his fellow fundamentalists, on charges of transporting boys across state lines for the purposes of prostitution or criminal sexual activity. Reverend Leyva railed in public against “filth” and “smut.” In private he sodomized more than 100 church boys, and was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison in 1989. [See Brother Tony’s Boys: The Largest Case of Child Prostitution in U.S. History]

Or how about cases of Christians murdering other Christians during exorcisms (you'll have to ask me to send you those, from different sources); or devout Christian wives murdering their sons and daughters (I'm not talking about taking a "morning after pill," but killing already born children); or serial killers like the Son of Sam and Jeffrey Dahmer claiming they had become "born again" in prison.

Then there's fiascos like the mega-church that spent a quarter of a million dollars to build a replica of the Statue of Liberty, but their version holds a cross aloft instead of a torch and clutches the Ten Commandments to her breast. What about the guy in the rainbow colored wig who used to hold up signs that read, "John 3:16" at televised sporting events? Do you know what happened to Rockin Rodney? Or how about a famous evangelist (Arthur Blessitt) who is currently raising money to launch a cross into outer space so it circles the globe.

So the world of religion remains crazier, wilder(and far funnier)than the world of atheism.

But one of the craziest things in my opinion is the fact that the earliest Christians didn't stop writing tales about Jesus and Paul and other apostles with the New Testament's books and letters, but continued to write additional Gospels and Acts and fake letters of Paul and Peter (including descriptions of visions they allegedly rec'd). Some scholars of course doubt that Paul and Peter wrote everything attributed to them in the Bible itself. Talk about early Christians being devout liars, who may have even thought they were inspired to collect and write down such tales. (The New Testament itself, in the book of Jude, even cites an ancient literary forgery as if it contained a genuine "prophecy" from "Enoch the seventh from Adam.")

Christians continued lying over the centuries concerning what famous non-believers and/or heretics said on their death beds, faking stories about what Voltaire said to what Darwin said.

Wild crazy Christian urban legends have also been passed around by Christians for decades, like the "sound of hell, taped from the bottom of a well drilled deep below the earth's surface." Or "end times" madness. Or "man-prints found inside dinosaur prints." I haven't even scratched the surface of the Pentecostal world and its crazy tales. Or nudist Christians down in Florida. (Yup, Christianity includes folks who like to cover their bodies like Amish and Catholic nuns, but it also includes naked clergymen and naked congregations who preach the good NUDES about Jesus Christ.)

More fun info below! Be discomfited!

Christianity runs the gamut...

From silent Trappist monks and quiet Quakers--to hell raisers and serpent-handlers;

From those who “hear the Lord” telling them to run for president, seek diamonds and gold (via liaisons with bloody African dictators), or sell “Lake of Galilee” beauty products--to those who have visions of Mary, the saints, or experience bleeding stigmata;

From those who believe the communion bread and wine remain just that--to those who believe the bread and wine are miraculously transformed into “invisible” flesh and blood (and can vouch for it with miraculous tales of communion wafers turning into human flesh and wine curdling into blood cells during Mass);

From those who argue that they are predestined to argue in favor of predestination--to those who argue for free will of their own free will;

From those who argue God is a “Trinity”--to “Unitarian” Christians (including not only Unitarian-Universalist churches, but some backwoods primitive Baptist churches, and Messianic Christian-Jewish denominations, not to leave out God’s chosen people in the earliest “testament” in the Bible);

From those who believe nearly everyone (except themselves and their church) will be damned --to those who believe everyone may (or will) eventually be saved;

From those who taught/teach that heretics and apostates ought to be executed [some Reconstructionist Christians still teach it would be good to bring back the practice] -- to Albigensian and Cathar Christians who outlawed violence and taught that the shedding of blood and the killing of any living thing, even the slaughtering of a chicken or ensnaring a squirrel, was a mortal sin (a belief they based on the spirituality and metaphors of Christ's meekness and forgiveness in the Gospel of John). [See The YellowCross: The Story of the Last Cathars’ Rebellion Against the Inquisition 1290-1329 by René Weis]

From Christians who view Eastern religious ideas and practices as “Satanic”--to Christian monks and priests who have gained insights into their own faith after dialoging with Buddhist monks and Hindu priests;

From castrati (boys in Catholic choirs who underwent castration to retain their high voices)--to Protestant hymns and Gospel quartets--all the way to “Christian rap;”

From Christians who reject any behavior that even mimics “what homosexuals do” (including a rejection of fellatio and cunnilingus between a husband and wife)--to Christians who accept committed, loving, homosexual relationships (including gay evangelical Church groups like the nationwide Metropolitan Baptist Church);

From Catholic nuns and Amish women who dress to cover their bodies--to Christian nudists (viz., there was a sect known as the “Adamites,” not to mention modern day Christians in Florida with their own nude Christian churches, campgrounds and even an amusement park), and let’s not forget born-again strippers;

From those who believe that a husband and wife can have sex for pleasure--to those who believe that sex should be primarily for procreation--to those who believe celibacy is superior to marriage (i.e., Catholic priests, monks, nuns, and some Protestant groups like the Shakers who denied themselves sexual pleasure and only maintained their membership by adopting abandoned children until the last Shaker finally died out in the late 1900s)--all the way to those who cut off their genitals for the kingdom of God (the Skoptze, a Russian Christian sect);

From those who believe sending out missionaries to persuade others to become Christians is essential--to the Anti-Mission Baptists who believe that sending out missionaries and trying to persuade others constitutes a lack of faith and the sin of pride, and that the founding of “extra-congregational missionary organizations” is not Biblical;

From those who believe that the King James Bible is the only inspired translation--to those who believe that no translation is totally inspired, only the original “autographs” were perfect--to those who believe that “perfection” only lay in the “spirit” that inspired the writing of the Bible’s books, not in the “letter” of the books themselves;

From those who believe Easter should be celebrated on one date (Roman Catholics)--to those who believe Easter should be celebrated on another date (Eastern Orthodox). And, from those who believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Roman Catholics)--to those who believe it proceeds from the Father alone (Eastern Orthodox view as taught by the early Church Fathers). Those disagreements, as well as others, sparked the greatest schism of church history (the Schism of 1054) when the uncompromising patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, and the envoys of the uncompromising Pope Leo IX, excommunicated each other;

From those who worship God on Sunday--to those who worship God on Saturday (Saturday being the Hebrew “sabbath” that God said to “keep holy” according to one of the Ten Commandments)--all the way to those who believe their daily walk with God and love of their fellow man is more important than church attendance;

From those who stress “God’s commands”--to those who stress “God’s love;”

From those who believe that you need only accept Jesus as your “personal savior” to be saved--to those who believe you must accept Jesus as both savior and “Lord” of your life in order to be saved. (Two major Evangelical Christian seminaries debated this question in the 1970s, and still disagree);

From those who teach that being “baptized with water as an adult believer” is an essential sign of salvation--to those who deny it is;

From those who believe that unbaptized infants who die go straight to hell--to those who deny the (once popular) church doctrine known as “infant damnation.”

From those who teach that “baptism in the Holy Spirit” along with “speaking in tongues” are important signs of salvation--to those who deny they are (some of whom see mental and Satanic delusions in modern day “Spirit baptism” and “tongue-speaking”);

From those who believe that avoiding alcohol, smoking, gambling, dancing, contemporary Christian music, movies, television, long hair (on men), etc., are all important signs of being saved--to those who believe you need only trust in Jesus as your personal savior to be saved;

From Christians who disagree whether the age of the cosmos should be measured in billions or only thousands of year--whether God pops new creatures into existence or subtly alters old ones--even some who disagree whether the earth goes round the sun or vice versa;

From pro-slavery Christians (there are some today who still remind us that the Bible never said slavery was a “sin”)--to anti-slavery Christians;

From Christians who defend the Biblical idea of having a king (and who oppose democracy as “the meanest and worst of all forms of government” to quote John Winthrop, first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, with whom some Popes agreed, as well as some of today’s Protestant Reconstructionist Christians)--to Christians who oppose kingships and support democracies;

From “social Gospel” Christians--to “uncompromised Gospel” Christians;

From Christians who do not believe in sticking their noses in politics--to coup d’etat Christians;

From “stop the bomb” Christians--to “drop the bomb” Christians;

From Christians who strongly suspect that the world will end tomorrow--to those who are equally certain it won’t.

All in all, Christianity gives Hinduism with its infinite variety of sects and practices a run for its money.

E.T.B.
____________________________

The Christian God--or gods? For out of Paraguayan Catholics, Vermont Congregationalists, Utah Mormons, and New Zealand Anglicans, sprout as many gods as are carved on a Jain temple wall.

John Updike
____________________________

In practice, Christianity, like Hinduism or Buddhism, is not one religion, but several religions, adapted to the needs of different types of human beings. A Christian church in Southern Spain, or Mexico, or Sicily is singularly like a Hindu temple. The eye is delighted by the same gaudy colors, the same tripe-like decorations, the same gesticulating statues; the nose inhales the same intoxicating smells; the ear and, along with it, the understanding, are lulled by the drone of the same incomprehensible incantations [in the old Catholic Latin mass tradition], roused by the same loud, impressive music.

At the other end of the scale, consider the chapel of a Cistercian monastery and the meditation hall of a community of Zen Buddhists. They are equally bare; aids to devotion (in other words fetters holding back the soul from enlightenment) are conspicuously absent from either building. Here are two distinct religions for two distinct kinds of human beings.

In Christianity bhakti [or, loving devotion] towards a personal being has always been the most popular form of religious practice. Up to the time of the [Catholic] Counter-Reformation, however, the way of knowledge ("mystical knowledge" as it is called in Chrstian language) was accorded an honorable place beside the way of devotion. From the middle of the sixteenth century onwards the way of knowledge came to be neglected and even condemned. We are told by Dom John Chapman that "Mercurian, who was general of the society (of Jesus) from 1573 to 1580, forbade the use of the works of Tauler, Ruysbroek, Suso, Harphius, St. Gertrude, and St. Mechtilde." Every effort was made by the [Catholic] Counter-Reformers to heighten the worshipper's devotion to a personal divinity. The literary content of Baroque art is hysterical, almost epileptic, in the violence of its emotionality. It even becomes necessary to call in physiology as an aid to feeling. The ecstasies of the saints are represented by seventeenth-century artists as being frankly sexual. Seventeenth-century drapery writhes like so much tripe. In the equivocal personage of Margaret Mary Alacocque, seventeenth-century piety pours over a bleeding and palpitating heart. From this orgy of emotionalism and sensationalism Catholic Christianity seems never completely to have recovered.

The ideal of non-attachment has been formulated and systematically preached again and again in the course of the last three thousand years. We find it (along with everything else) in Hinduism. It is at the very heart of the teachings of the Buddha. For Chinese readers the doctrine is formulated by Lao Tsu. A little later, in Greece, the ideal of non-attachment is proclaimed, albeit with a certain, pharisaic priggishness, by the Stoics. The Gospel of Jesus is essentially a gospel of non-attachment to "the things of this world," and of attachment to God. Whatever may have been the aberrations of organized Christianity--and they range from extravagant asceticism to the most brutally cynical forms of realpolitik--there has been no lack of Christian philosophers to reaffirm the ideal of non-attachment. Here is John Tauler, for example, telling us that “freedom is complete purity and detachment which seeketh the Eternal...” Here is the author of “The Imitation of Christ,” who bids us “pass through many cares as though without care; not after the manner of a sluggard, but by a certain prerogative of a free mind, which does not cleave with inordinate affection to any creature.”

Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for Their Realization
____________________________

Live long enough and you’ll encounter a lot of folks who say you are not really a Christian for a host of reasons. I’ve found the “no-true-Christian-would-do-or-believe-XYZ” game one of the more popular among, well, Christians.

Jonathan ( jge642000@yahoo.com ) at the yahoo group ExitFundyism
____________________________

People have an amazing ability to fool themselves. Even Christian theology teaches that there are those who think they are believers but aren't. But just watching, as I have, an Islamic music group from Malaysia makes one realize how similar their actions are to those of a Christian music group. To see a man standing in deep meditation outside of a Shinto temple in Japan makes one wonder how belief comes about. To see a woman with great concern on her face burning a huge number of incense sticks at a temple in Hangzhou, China (one of my very favorite pictures) tells one that fervent prayer (and belief in the efficacy of prayer) is not the sole province of the Christian. To see how devoted Tibetan Buddhists are to their beliefs when compared with levels of devotion shown by many western Christians to theirs, makes one wonder why so many of us are less committed than them; same with the Islamacists who are willing to die for their beliefs while much of the West is not interested in self-sacrifice.

Glenn Morton [Evangelical Christian], American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) Email Discussion Group (June 16, 2006)
____________________________

In my journeys in Christianity both in America and abroad I’ve run across a myriad of believers, a mosaic of Christianity:

I remember a converted Christian who used to be a “Satanist ,” saying, “What’s the big deal about smoking marijuana?”

A Pentecostal pastor in Holland sat crying at a street side cafe worried that one of his woman parishioners was going to hell since she had stopped coming to church and was now wearing make-up.And as he cried, his tears rolled off his cheeks into his beer. (Many Pentecostal Christians in the U.S. ascribe to an ethic of absolute abstinence from alcohol.)

I’ve known Christians who won’t own a TV; others who won’t allow playing cards in their house, and others who drink alcohol liberally and have every material possession imaginable. Others attempt to memorize the Bible to such an extent that it blocks most of their own personal original thoughts about anything; others who are social activists who take up causes like opposing abortion or picketing a Marilyn Manson concert; others who are simple and humble and feed the poor and house the homeless; others who are missionaries in third world countries suffering hardship for the “cause of Christ.” There was a sub group, however, in my institute who were King James Only--they believed the KJV was the only true inspired Bible for today and that all other versions were corrupted. As a group, they were radically enthusiastic and were proud to be KJV ONLY, and often fueled arguments over alternate translations. Heaven forbid they should catch anyone reading or enjoying The Living Bible (a modern English paraphrased translation of the ancient Hebrew) which they viewed as “the Devil’s work.”

Karl Arendale at the Yahoo Group, ExitFundyism
___________________________

Theology is a comprehensive, rigorous, and systematic attempt to conceal the beam in the scriptures and traditions of one’s own denomination while minutely measuring the mote in the heritages of ones’ brothers.

Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic
___________________________