I'm Taking a Needed Break

Last time I took a break it only lasted for one week. Who knows how long this one will be? I'll still listen in, but I'm burned out right now. Stay tuned for what the other members will post. I'll be back. So as a last thought for a while let me leave you with how I see our differences:

Christians and I reject all other religions. I simply reject their Christian religion with the same confidence they have when rejecting all other religions. The rejection of a religious viewpoint is the easy part. We all do it. And we're all confident when doing so. The hard part after the rejection is to affirm a religious viewpoint. That's where a person must argue that he has the correct one. And from what I see, Christians are just as confident that they are right as that the others are wrong, unlike me. I think the default position is soft-agnosticism, which simply says, "I don't know." That's right, I don't know what to believe after rejecting all religious viewpoints. I could even happily concede that there is a God, a deist god, a philosopher's god. But such a distant god is no different than none at all. Think about it. That's why I've chosen to be an atheist, since it makes no difference to me even if a god does exist. But I could be wrong, and I admit it.

Christians on the other hand seem absolutely confident that they are correct in what they affirm, and that's a huge difference between us. Given the proliferation of religious viewpoints separated by geographical location around the globe, the fact that believers have a strong tendency to rationally support what they were taught to believe (before they had the knowledge or capability to properly evaluate it), along with the lack of compelling evidence to convince people who are outsiders to the Christian faith, mine is the reasonable viewpoint to affirm, that's all.

Gay Marriage and Coming Out of the Closet

A Republican San Diego Mayor reversed his decision to veto gay marriage legislation due primarily to knowing people who are gay, like his daughter and some staff members.

There is power in knowing someone who believes differently. Real power! The gays initiated a campaign where they called on people to come of the closet. Dawkins has done the same. It's time for non-believers to come out of the closet. We are their neighbors, their friends, and their loved ones. We can make a difference if we simply tell people. Think about it: 1/4th of us may be non-believers!

I understand there is a difference between people who don't believe and those who actively argue against Christianity like we do here at DC. Those who argue against that delusion may not want to tell others they're doing this. But I urge all non-believers to simply tell people the truth, that you don't believe, especially to your friends and family. That's the minimum obligation you have, and it worked with this Mayor. Just think about all of our non-believing forebearers who suffered so much that we might have more and more freedoms to speak out. Your difficulties will be minor inconveniences compared to theirs.

Kerry Walker, for instance, claims he's being prosecuted because he's a non-believer who is writing a book against the Christian faith. There is probably some truth to this. If we came out of the closet this type of stuff will not take place as much. Let's try to end it here and now...in this generation.

[Thanks to the Secular Outpost for calling my attention to this].

Schizophrenia Candidate Genes Affect Even Healthy Individuals

This is an article providing information about Biological Bases for Behavior.
It is intended as evidence to weaken the doctrine of punishment for sin as a result of freewill and the concept of an absolute freewill.

ScienceDaily.com

In the largest study of its kind to date, scheduled for publication in the October 1st issue of Biological Psychiatry, researchers sought to examine the impact of a few particular genes, known to be associated with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, on a healthy population.....
.....
In other words, they found that the healthy individuals who possessed the risk variants within the DNTBP1, NRG1, and DAAO genes exhibited small reductions in their cognitive performance and had atypical experiences that might be associated with schizophrenia.....
.....
Dr. Stefanis, explaining the importance of this study, comments that "these findings support the notion that even at the general population level, the genetic liability to psychosis may be expressed as minute and 'undetected to the naked eye' alterations in brain information processing capacity and behavior." Dr. Krystal adds, "Consistent with a growing body of evidence, this study suggests that there may be subtle cognitive impairments that are present when these common risk gene variants are present in the general population." Clearly, these findings will have an important impact on the future genetic work in this area.

I couldn't have said it better.

This casts doubt on the principle of punishment for sin is a better principle than nurturing remediation. Where is god when you need him? Oh yea, everything happens in gods time.
And the check is in the mail.

References
Sciencedaily.com: Mind and Brain
Scienceblogs.com: Brain and Behavior

Thanks For the Memories

When I first heard this song on the radio I was delighted since it seemed to talk about leaving God. It's more of a song for gay/bi-sexual people, I think, which is cool too. In any case I predict with the rise of atheism we'll have more top songs that speak out against the God delusion, especially since nonbelief is on the rise among the young. I look forward to it.

"Should I Come Out of the Closet?"

Every once-in-a-while I'll get an email asking me if a person who is a non-believer should "come out of the closet." I received another one today:

My question to you is, should I “come out of the closet” with regard to my agnosticism? If I were to do so, I would only give my opinion if asked or if religious issues were being discussed. I know that some of my wife’s family and my own family would not like me anymore, but that doesn’t really bother me. However, I know that it could negatively effect my wife and I do not want to make life difficult for her. What should I do?

Here's what I said:

1) People will still like you. If they don't like you after you tell them they probably didn't like you before. It just means you've given them an excuse to say so. 2) Jesus was the first one to say believers should be willing to forsake family for him, so if there is a problem it's because of what Jesus purportedly said, and another reason to come out against such stupidity. 3) Life is difficult. Get used to it. But you can choose your battles. Ask if you can live with yourself in hiding. Many of your forbearers suffered a great deal to make your life as an agnostic better. Some were burned alive. If they can do that for your freedom to speak out, then such a difficulty as yours should be considered minor and met with courage. 4) We need you. If every agnostic and atheist came out of the closet people would get used to it. There is safety in numbers. Please do your part.

In the end though, this is your choice. You see what I would do. But I am not you.

For still more advice see this.

Daylight Atheism's Comment Policy

FYI I have abided by the same comment policy found at Daylight Atheism but never wrote it down in detail before. Here it is.

The Artifice of Words.

It has been said that language is the very essence of what makes us human. If we are to fully understand what it means to be human, then, we must understand what language is, how it works, how we use it, or misuse it.

Linguistics, often defined as 'the scientific study of language', is a broad term covering a wide range of different disciplines. The traditional 'core' areas of the subject deal with the structure of human languages in terms of how speech sounds combine to form syllables and words (phonetics and phonology), how words combine into meaningful utterances such as sentences and phrases (morphology and syntax), and how we extract meaning from utterances we read or hear used by other people (semantics and pragmatics). But beyond this, linguists are also interested in matters such as how languages evolve and change over time, how they are learned by children and by adults, how languages are used in social settings, the historical and contemporary relationships between languages, the roles of language in nation-building and identity marking, the development of writing systems, how the brain processes speech and language, how communication is possible when speech and language are impaired, etc. Linguistics therefore has close links to many other fields of enquiry in the social, physical and medical sciences, philosophy, and the arts and humanities. Our understanding of language origins, structure and use changes constantly with new discoveries in neuroscience, animal behaviour, archaeology and palaeontology, sociology, and psychology, etc.

A closer examination of words, language, and meaning reveals that all words are abstractions, only the degree of their abstraction defers.

Throughout my writing, I often mention language and the artifice of words. Now the term 'artifice of words' may sound strange to some people, especially those who have no familiarity with the philosophy of language, linguistics, or aesthetics. While we are bombarded with hundreds of thousands of words a day, whether oral, written, or broadcast, very few of us have actually taken the time to consider the symbolic abstraction that underlies the meanings of the words we use and the rapid mental associations we make to interpret such generic terms like dog, tree, hot, bad, love, blue, and god.

Language, how things 'mean' something, and truth are important subjects of consideration not simply because they are used in everyday life, but because language shapes human development, from earliest childhood and continuing to death. Knowledge itself is intertwined with language, its transmission and distribution. Notions of self, experience, and existence mostly depend on how language is used, what is learned through it, how it is interpreted and on-going assumptions derived from interpretation. The topic of learning language leads to all kinds of interesting questions. Is it possible to have any thoughts without having a language? What kinds of thoughts need a language to happen? How much does language influence knowledge of the world and how one acts in it? Can anyone reason at all without using language? Does language influence the "primal experience of being" (i.e., the animalistic pre-language state) in such a way so as to distort one's experience and worldview in order to confirm language's abstractions? The philosophy of language deliberately considers these types of questions. It is an important point of study because language is inseparable from how one thinks and interprets the world. People in general have a set of vital concepts which are connected with signs and symbols, including all words (symbols): "object," "love," "good," "God," "masculine," "feminine," "art," "government," and so on.By incorporating "meaning," everyone has shaped (or has had shaped for them) a view of the universe and how they have "meaning" within it. In a great many cases—especially when considering religion and politics—people infer meaning from words alone, from the abstractions inherent in language, because the objects of the describing words (entities or agencies like "god" or "afterlife" or "angels") are nowhere in evidence in the 'real world'.

By definition, then, and necessity, language is abstract and assumptive. The linguistic meaning of words is presupposed and inferred. There are essentially two different types of inferences when it comes to words we use: conceptual meaning and associative meaning.

The conceptual meanings of an expression have to do with the definitions of words themselves, and the features of those definitions. This kind of meaning is treated by using a technique called "semantic feature analysis." The conceptual meaning of an expression inevitably involves both definition (also called "connotation" and "intension") and extension (also called "denotation").

One issue that has bothered philosophers and ordinary people for as long as there have been words is the problem of their vagueness. Often, meanings expressed by the speaker are not as explicit as the listener would like them to be. The consequences of vagueness can be disastrous to classical logic because they give rise to the Sorites Paradox (in which the definition of a word like "heap" can be constructed or deconstruction one grain of dirt at a time until the object in question can no longer be considered a "heap" by definition but becomes something else).

Most people don't think about the abstractive and assumptive properties inherent in language although both are constantly used in day-to-day interaction. This is best demonstrated by an example. Consider the sentence:

The Dog Chased the Ball into the Street and Got Hit by a Car.

If you're like most people, the sentence above makes perfect sense to you. You know precisely what it means. You can imagine it, almost picture it in your mind's eye. But how? Every element of this sentence is completely abstract.

- I say "dog" but you've been given no description of the breed of dog or its size, whether it is a small Boston Terrier or a large Doberman Pinscher, or sleek or fat, or old or young. You have a fuzzy nebulous "feeling" for the idea of "dog" even though you know nothing about the animal in question beyond the word.
- I say "ball" but you've been given no description of the ball regarding it's type or size, whether it was rolling, bouncing, or flying through the air. It could just as easily be a tennis ball as a basket ball, or any other type of ball a dog is apt to chase.
- I say "street" and once again you know nothing about the type of street, its size, or the materials used in its construction.
- I say "car" and know nothing about its make or model, size or shape, color or speed.

What makes this kind of abstraction possible is your awareness of having actually had physical interaction with specific dogs and balls and streets and cars. You can conceptualize based on this interaction and thus infer the meaning from a broad abstract sentence like "The dog chased the ball into the street and got hit by a car."

Now, here's the kicker:

When it comes to supernatural religion it may be surprising to most believers to consider the simple fact that religion is all talk, only talk, and nothing but talk. Supernatural religion consists only of words, an ancient collection of words mostly recounted in anonymous third-person narratives (a fictional technique or unwarranted hearsay), and that's it. Because supernatural religion is comprised only of words, there's nothing empirical, physical, nothing of substance that you can point to besides art (derived from the word artifice or artificial) in any of its aspects: literature, poetry, music, painting, sculpture, theater, motion pictures, television, etc.

So, when believers talk about the "Will of God" or say things like "God is Love" or "God is Omnipotent and Omniscient" or ask "What Would Jesus Do?" not only are they utilizing a generic abstraction (like using the words 'dog', 'street', and 'ball') they are using an abstraction twice-removed because they are inferring God's godliness only from the artifice of words and not from any actual associations in the 'real' world. Ask a believer to describe "God" and to drill down to the particulars (as with the description of "dog") and you will be handed a list of generic abstract terms that are by themselves quite meaningless until they are weighed against 'real' properties that exist in the physical world.

I realize this is heady stuff, so let's try to make it a clearer with another example.

When believers explain that "God is Love" where are they getting this information? Are they observing God in action, then deducing from His behavior that he is a loving god? No. They are quoting and interpreting words in the Bible to make their case for a loving god while ignoring or conveniently forgetting other words in the Bible that make a case for a petty, judgmental, infantile, and merciless god. In either case, the very idea of a loving god was not derived from any behavioral evidence apparent in the 'real' world (with it's illness, disease, war, pain, suffering, cruelty, etc) but only from the artifice of words. Now, who wrote the words from whence believers derive the interpretation that 'God is Love'? In nine out of ten times, they don't know who wrote the words because the various authors are anonymous or the words subject to centuries of editing and redaction. In other words, believers are basing their interpretations of the attributes of God only on words written thousands of years ago by who knows whom? And apologists like to carp that rationalists and skeptics rely too much on naturalistic presuppositions!

Barna Poll About The New Generation and Christianity

Someone just sent me this link. Thanks. Here's a few of the points made:

As the nation’s culture changes in diverse ways, one of the most significant shifts is the declining reputation of Christianity, especially among young Americans. A new study by The Barna Group conducted among 16- to 29-year-olds shows that a new generation is more skeptical of and resistant to Christianity than were people of the same age just a decade ago.

The study of Christianity’s slipping image is explored in a new book, entitled unChristian, by David Kinnaman, the president of The Barna Group. The study is a result of collaboration between Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Project.

The study shows that 16- to 29-year-olds exhibit a greater degree of criticism toward Christianity than did previous generations when they were at the same stage of life. In fact, in just a decade, many of the Barna measures of the Christian image have shifted substantially downward, fueled in part by a growing sense of disengagement and disillusionment among young people. For instance, a decade ago the vast majority of Americans outside the Christian faith, including young people, felt favorably toward Christianity’s role in society. Currently, however, just 16% of non-Christians in their late teens and twenties said they have a "good impression" of Christianity.

One of the groups hit hardest by the criticism is evangelicals. Such believers have always been viewed with skepticism in the broader culture. However, those negative views are crystallizing and intensifying among young non-Christians. The new study shows that only 3% of 16 - to 29-year-old non-Christians express favorable views of evangelicals. This means that today’s young non-Christians are eight times less likely to experience positive associations toward evangelicals than were non-Christians of the Boomer generation (25%)...

Over-Promise, Under-Deliver

This evening I was driving home from work, listening to a pastor on the radio preach from a text that would be familiar to most Christians: “And my God shall supply all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:9). Paul says this within the context of the Philippians’ material generosity toward him, assuring them that God would reciprocate by meeting their every need. Like many preachers, I used to quote this verse with a confident swagger. “How many of your needs did God say he’d supply?” I’d shout from the pulpit. “ALL of them!”—to which I would received a hearty “Amen!” This is but one of the many extravagant promises layered throughout the Scriptures.

For example:

* “Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.” (Psalm 37:4)

* “I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." (Matthew 17:20)

* “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 18:19)

* “And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” (Matthew 21:22)

Whenever verses like these were quoted in my congregation, I was quick to add qualifiers like, “Your desires must be God’s desires,” “God has three answers to prayer: yes, no, and wait,” and “You must examine yourself, lest sin or unbelief hinder God’s blessing in your life.” But the Bible does not necessarily include such caveats with the promises of God--most of them are very straightforward.

Occasionally, my comfortable theological bubble was punctured by instances of sincere believers being inflicted with pointless suffering. One of them, in particular, prompted me to call the Bible's extravagant promises into question. A young Christian wife became the victim of a cheating husband, who ran away with the other woman, but not before stripping the house of all the furniture and valuables. He did leave a few things behind—-two small kids, some large debts, and a trail of emotional wreckage. To add insult to injury, this sweet Christian woman was stricken with an unusual cancer during the divorce proceedings. While “Standing on the Promises” (a favorite Christian hymn), she almost lost everything. Witnessing this harsh reality first-hand made the promises of God seem absurd to me.

Promises like:

* “Whatever you ask in my name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” (John 14:13)

* “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.” (John 15:7)

* “And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight.” (1 John 3:22)

As a Christian, God clearly promises to meet all your needs, answer your every prayer, and give you the very desires of your heart. One of the inherent problems with such verses, of course, is their all-encompassing and absolute nature. 2 Corinthians 1:20 says, “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ.” The Psalmist declares, “The LORD is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made” (Psalm 145:13). So despite the many excuses Christian offer on behalf of the Almighty, God doesn’t give himself an out!

The “Name-it-and-claim-it Gospel” is widely condemned by conservative evangelicals. But why, exactly? Aren’t radical Pentecostals just taking their God at his word? I submit that many Christians are secretly embarrassed by the Bible’s extravagant promises because (1) they know intuitively that they are not realistic expectations, (2) they are afraid that God will fail them, or (3) they have witnessed someone else being let down by the promises.

In the business world, we’re cautioned against overpromising. “Under-promise and over-deliver” is our motto. Somebody forgot to tell the Biblical writers that in all his superfluous promising, their God is incapable of delivering.

A Great List of Biblical Fallacies

To see the list click here. Which ones are the most difficult? Why?

Brain Atrophy In Elderly Leads To Unintended Racism, Depression And Problem Gambling

This is an article providing information about Biological Bases for Behavior.
It is intended as evidence to weaken the doctrine of sin as a result of freewill and the concept of an absolute freewill.

ScienceDaily.com

excerpt
"Science Daily — As we age, our brains slowly shrink in volume and weight. This includes significant atrophy within the frontal lobes, the seat of executive functioning. Executive functions include planning, controlling, and inhibiting thought and behavior. In the aging population, an inability to inhibit unwanted thoughts and behavior causes several social behaviors and cognitions to go awry.

In a study appearing in the October issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, University of Queensland psychologist, Bill von Hippel, reports that decreased inhibitory ability in late adulthood can lead to unintended prejudice, social inappropriateness, depression, and gambling problems."

Peoples behavior, decisions, choices, attitude, temperament, etc are shaped by many factors. Some of the more important ones are Genetics, Environment and Physiology.

If we cannot do what we prefer because the brains cognitive mechanism can be influenced externally, then freewill is impeded. If we do things that we would prefer not to, or would not normally do if the cognitive mechanism supported it, then we should not be held culpable by a God on the basis of freewill. I think this can be extrapolated proportionally from the extreme to the average person.

At what point would be "convicted of sin"? Would it be better to kill ourselves when we think we are at our most "righteous" and hope for the best?

I am going to continue to post these types of news articles as I find them.

Some Advice To Those Who Leave Christianity

Today I received this email: "John I finished reading your book this week and am now no longer a Christian...."

I have been heading strongly in that direction for about a month. I was wondering if you could give some advice on what to do next. How do I minimise the damage to relationships with my wife, my son, my relatives and friends as I tell them about my new world view?

My biggest concern is my son, who attends a private Christian school. I know hardly anything about child psychology and am not sure how my decision not to be Christian any more will affect him. As much as possible I want to avoid causing my son any long-term confusion, animosity towards me or any real difficulty at school, being the kid with the dad who doesn't believe in God. My wife will be very unsettled to find that I no longer believe.

Do you have any advice on how I should go about it, or can you recommend any kind of book?

Because my family and relatives currently believe I am still a Christian, I feel I must do something very soon, because my normal life is to go to church, answer my son's questions about God at home, pray with him at bed time, pray with my wife and mother-in-law at times, and say grace at dinner.

I look forward to hearing from you and would appreciate the opportunity to remain anonymous, at least for now.
Yours sincerely
"QA"

Here's what I wrote to him:

It's nice to know my book has helped you. For your next book I highly recommend this one by Dr. Winell.

Your questions are painful ones, situational ones, that I would need to know more about you and your family and your son to offer you specific advice. That's why you should get Dr. Winell's book. She also does seminars.

Yours is a troubling case. I know I wouldn't want to damage my relationships with my family. Some atheists in the past just keep quiet about their doubts because that's all they could do, to not talk about them. Wow, that's something I couldn't do, especially now in this era.

What I did as I was becoming an unbeliever was to express questions that would be considered on the fringes of that which wouldn't alert people to the fact that I took these questions seriously. I would ask, "what would you say if someone said this....?" And I would then ask a tough question, but accept their answer as if that settles it. Then I would do it again, and again, and again. Christian people thought of me as playing the "Devil's Advocate," and they actually liked my questions since it gave them a challenge. [Actually, I didn't really deceive people by doing this. I merely expressed the questions I was wrestling with as I was questioning these things myself].

If I were you I would express my doubts to your wife by slowly introducing the subject with several "Devil's Advocate" type questions when reading the Bible. How long I'd do this (days, weeks, or months) would depend upon factors I don't know about your situation. After planting these seeds I would simply tell her that I was struggling with doubt. She'd probably recommend a book or tell you to talk to the preacher, and I would do this. I would ask the preacher some of my questions and tell him I'm struggling with doubt. He'd likely offer you some advice and some books to read. Then when the time is right I'd tell my wife I no longer believe. This doesn't mean you should tell everyone at that point, just her. Explain to her why you don't believe. Have her read my book. Then see where things go from there. At some point you'd have to play it by ear after that.

----------------------
I just learned from someone that when a Campus Crusade for Christ minister told his wife he no longer believed, she told him in turn that she didn't either! This is the exception rather than the rule, but interesting nonetheless.

----------------------

I wish you well. There are no pat answers.

Eddie Tabash Recommends My Book!

Today I went to the Grand Opening of the new Center for Inquiry Indiana, where Paul Kurtz, Toni Van Pelt, Joe Nicholl and Eddie Tabash were the main speakers. Tabash spoke on the topic, “The Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms,” and it was very motivating for me.

Eddie was talking to some people before he spoke and I went up to listen in and to introduce myself. He read my name tag before I could do so. Then he asked me, "did you write the book against Christianity," and I nodded. Then he turned to the people he was talking to and said, “John’s book is the finest refutation of Christianity I have read. I use it in my debates.” Then turning back to me he said, “I bought twelve copies to give away.” As the author of the book I think what I wrote is good too (of course), but hearing it from someone like him, whom I admire so much, felt really good. I saw a video of the debate he had with William Lane Craig before he had read my book (shown below). He did such an excellent job it’s hard to see how my book helps him in his debates. But he said it does, and for that I’m very grateful.

He joins the ranks of others who recommend it…

…like skeptics Daniel Dennett, Paul Kurtz, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Carrier, Edward Babinski (who wrote the Foreword to it), Dan Barker, Valerie Tarico, David Van Allen, Matthew Green, Joe Holman, Chris Hallquist, and others. Kurtz said my book "has the makings of being a great book,” and that he’s “eager to see it in print." On the back cover and inside pages of the Prometheus Books edition there will probably be recommendations by Michael Shermer, John Beversluis, Robert M. Price, Andrea Weisberger, and if the time frame permits him, from Jeffery Jay Lowder (at least, they all have expressed an interest in seeing it for a blurb).

On the Christian side of the fence, Norman L. Geisler and James F. Sennett both recommend it too. Other Christian thinkers who have expressed an interest in seeing it are Paul Copan, Michael Murray, Richard Swinburne, Mark Linville (who is potentially planning on using it in an apologetics seminar), and William Baker (the editor of the Stone-Campell Journal--my former denominational journal). Bill Craig knows about it and will surely take a look at it when it comes out. Scot McKnight is writing a chapter describing the reasons why Christians lose their faith and is highlighting my story.

I don’t tell my readers these things to bore them, or to pat myself on the back (even though it’s nice to be patted by others), or to make money off the sales (of course, if it can help pay a few bills that would really help me out), or to make a name for myself (although, as a middle child we learn that negative attention is still attention). No. My number one goal is to produce the best damn counter-apologetics book on the market today that does not just preach to the skeptical choir, so to speak, if possible (and if not, it’s still a worthy goal). The reason I want to do this is because the better I can make my book, the more it will be read, and I want people to read it! If I hadn’t written the book I would still want people to read a book like this one. If Eddie's recommendation and the others are even somewhat on the mark, my book has the potential of changing the thinking of Christians in America, and the reason why I want to do this was expressed very eloquently by Eddie today in his talk!

The debate between Tabash and Craig:

Latest Amazon Review of my Book

You know I can't resist....

Mr. Loftus has written a thorough treatise on why he rejected his evangelical Christianity and became and atheist. This is not solely a personal account of why he left the church and ministry, although it starts out that way. The book begins with a brief biography, explaining how he became so enamored of evangelical x-tianity that he eventually made the ministry his livelihood. It is particularly honest of Mr. Loftus to quote his early writings in these passages so the reader can see how thoughtful yet profoundly mistaken he was.

The remainder of the book is Mr. Loftus addressing some of the main problems of the Jesus religion and the Bible. He wants the reader to understand that he did not reject x-tianity so he could sin and not feel guilt--his was a thoughtful and scholarly admission that x-tianity cannot be a description of real historical events upon which a person should base her/his life.

If Jesus was a historical figure, about which no one can be certain, he did not perform miracles; he probably didn't die on a cross or tree; and he most certainly didn't arise zombie-like from the dead and scare gullible folk in Palestine before ascending to heaven. The Bible, Loftus comes to understand, is mythologic ramblings of superstitious peasants. The story of Adam and Eve is clearly a fable; there was no universal flood; people don't repent in a whale's gullet and then preach to Nineveh. The Gospels are clearly embellishments of an early god-man myth, the writers of which are clearly trying to convince other people to believe in their brand of x-tianity rather than trying to tell us of real events (to which they could not have been witnesses).

An important fact arises from Mr. Loftus' discussion--intelligent adults rarely becomes x-tians. The author, William Craig Lane, and most people who babble about x-tianity joined before they were thinking clearly (as adolescents), or were inculcated as children. An intelligent outsider would never buy all the baloney that is x-tianity.

After coming to these shocking conclusions, Mr. Loftus was left with no choice but to look at the world rationally and employ healthy skepticism as he re-created his entire world view. The bulk of Mr. Loftus' exegesis is lengthy quotations from John Hick, William Craig Lane, and many apologists from the InterVarsity Press (what a freakshow that place must be!). This is a highly recommended read for those who have the courage to examine the predominant superstition in the United States.

Believing in the “Impossible”: A Critical Review of JP Holding’s book, “The Impossible Faith.”

Anyone who reads much of what Holding says on the web knows that he majors in ad hominems against those who disagree, and it should be well known that I do not like him. He’s a non-credentialed arrogant hack who has gained a following mostly from the uninformed. No wonder he had to self-publish this book. He claims that one of the reasons Christian publishers won’t publish it (which leads me to think he tried to get it published) is because, in his own words, “I won't write Left Behind style crap, and the market for Christian lit is glutted, unlike the atheist market.” I think there is another reason.

The book reminds me of one of the good college term papers I’ve read, which I’d give him a “A” on if I were grading it, but that’s it. “Good,” in so far as he read a few books and strung together some decent information from which I learned a little. “College term paper,” in so far as he lacks a breadth of knowledge on the issues he writes about beyond that level. Among Christian publishers who are looking to publish in the area of apologetics, they are looking for something better.

On the back cover Holding claims to have 17 years in apologetics ministry. If he’s 38 years old now (a guess), then that means he started his ministry when he was 21 years old. What can that mean? That a 21 year old on the web arguing for Christianity has an apologetics ministry? Hardly. He also claims “It is impossible to estimate the evangelical impact that is possible because of The Impossible Faith.” Since he capitalizes and italicizes the words, “The Impossible Faith” here, it’s hard not to escape the conclusion he’s referring to his own book. Such wildly overstated self-promotional claims usually come from college sophomores who think they know everything simply because they’re not yet informed enough to fully grasp the serious objections to their own arguments.

The “explosive proposition” of his book is that “there is simply no possibility that Christianity could have been accepted by anyone in the ancient world, unless its first missionaries had indisputable proof and testimony of the faith’s central tenant, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Had there not been such indisputable evidence to present, Christianity would have been an impossible faith.” (p. viii) This is a very large claim! It’s widely recognized among educated people that the larger the claim is, the harder it becomes to prove it. But if you think this is a large claim he goes even farther. When discussing the skeptical argument that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, Holding writes: “It is impossible that Christianity thrived and survived while making such audacious claims falsely, and even more incredible to suppose that such claims were made with the full and continuing knowledge that the result in most cases would be rejection, ostracization, and persecution.” Then in the next paragraph he adds, “There are two added layers of difficulty…” So, first Holding claims such a faith is “impossible,” but that’s not enough. He adds that beyond being impossible, “it’s even more incredible...” But that’s not even enough, for he goes on to talk about “two added layers of difficulty.” (p. 97). How he can pile up “two added layers of difficulty” on top of an already “incredible” skeptical argument on behalf of an “impossible” scenerio, is beyond me. Educated people know not to claim more than what their arguments actually show.

His argument has floated around in Christian circles for decades, and maybe even centuries before, with more reserved claims about what it actually shows. It would be interesting to know who first used it. I myself used it as a Christian. But I only claimed the Christian faith was unlikely. The novelty of his approach is that he uses some recent scholarship from the Social Science Group of Malina, Neyrey, and Rohrbaugh, along with McCane’s study of burial customs in the New Testament era--books which someone must have pointed out to him and from which he uses like they were the gospel truth. He obviously picks and chooses what he wants to believe by these scholars, since none of them would affirm the inerrancy of the Bible, and McCane may be an atheist for all he knows.

It’s worth looking at his main argument.

Holding argues that ancient societies highly valued honor much more than we do today, and as such Jesus’ shameful crucifixion and burial would be powerful obstacles to them believing he is the Son of God. Holding asks, “How could a man, subject to such overwhelming disgrace, in a society where honor was so crucial, have come to be recognized as the Son of God? There is only one viable explanation,” that Jesus arose from the dead. (p. 17). Really? Only one viable explanation?

Holding argues that in the ancient world people concentrated not on individual identity but rather on group identity such that there were three strikes against believing in Jesus. Strike # 1 is that Jesus was a Jew, hated and despised by the Romans. Strike # 2 is that Jesus was a Galilean, which added to Roman hatred just like Iraq or Afghanistan is to us today. The Galileans were also thought to be “ignoramuses” by the Jews in Judea. Strike # 3 is that Jesus was from Nazareth, which would cause both Jews and Gentiles to scoff at the idea he was the Messiah. Holding writes: “Ethnically and geographically, Jesus was everything that everyone did NOT expect a Messiah to be.” (p. 27). Everyone? Really?

Holding argues that the resurrection was a major stumbling block in preaching to the Gentiles because a bodily resurrection went against the philosophical thinking of that day, where the body was considered something to be escaped from, and it was strange to Jewish ears because “no one had conceived of the idea of one UNIQUE resurrection before the time of final judgment” (pp. 29-32). Again. “No one”? What about Herod and some others (Mt 14:1, Mark 16:14-16)?

Holding argues that in the ancient world “innovation was bad.” Giving preference to the thinking of the ancestors over innovative ideas was the rule among the ancients. Holding argues this in regard to several particular innovative ideas: 1) Jesus taught that believers should be willing to forsake their families; 2) Jesus reached out to tax collectors and a Samaritan woman; 3) Jesus said the Temple would be destroyed by pagans; 4) Jesus teaching was subversive toward the Jewish perception of patriotism. Since Christianity was such an innovation (an arrogant and exclusive innovation), “it is extremely unlikely that anyone would have accepted the Christian faith—unless there was indisputable evidence of its central claim, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (pp. 33-45). Once more. Is it “extremely unlikely that ANYONE would have accepted the Christian faith…?”

Holding turns next to three other religions, Mithraism, Mormonism and Islam and argues that none of these other religions passes the test as an “impossible faith.” (pp. 47-66). There are differences, no doubt, but they all arose from superstitious people and charismatic leaders. Mithraism actually died out, and by the criteria Holding suggested earlier that an impossible faith would be one that “passed into history” (p. vii) then it should be considered an “impossible faith.” When it comes to Mormonism, like Christianity, he doesn’t mention how persecution actually fans the flames of a movement.

In the short and remaining mostly superficial chapters Holding argues that there are “three pillars” supportive of the “impossible faith”: 1) Miracles; 2) The empty tomb; and 3) The fulfillment of prophecy (pp. 67-75). He argues that the resurrection was not expected by his disciples (pp. 77-82). And he closes by arguing against two old and often debated arguments that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross, known as the “swoon theory” (pp. 83-94), and the “theft theory,” that someone stole the body of Jesus and perpetrated a lie (pp. 95-105).

Overall Holding wildly overstates his case, doesn’t interact sufficiently with his detractors, and bases his arguments on certain implausible assumptions that he doesn’t justify. For instance, Richard Carrier has sufficiently refuted his claims, not once but twice, along with Robert M. Price, Brian Hotz, and recently the combative Matthew Green, but Holding doesn’t mention their arguments or interact with them at all in this book. While I can excuse him for not dealing with Green's recent arguments, I can't with regard to those written before he self-published his book. Why didn't he? He doesn’t interact with the book, The Empty Tomb, either. If he wants to be a scholar, a wannabe, then the one thing scholars do is they show awareness of the relevant literature and interact with it. Holding doesn’t do this in his book, even though he does attempt this outside of his book.

Furthermore, Holding quotes from the New Testament showing no awareness of Biblical criticism, the debates about Biblical inspiration, or whether Jesus actually fulfilled prophecy. Maybe he should take the 100% challenge? To blithely quote from a gospel (or the New Testament) without some understanding of the strata of gospel origins and the debates that ensue from them is just superficial stuff. He also assumes the people in Biblical times were not superstitious people in comparison to our own modern educated societies. He thinks people believed Christianity because of evidence even though they believed in Artemis, Zeus, and Janus, and that's merely college level stuff. [I’ll probably have more to say, but this is all for now].

The Fallibility of the Human Experience

Amongst all of the disagreements, both theists and secularists can generally agree on one proposition; human beings are eminently fallible and imperfect creatures. Given the limitations of human beings, is it a wonder that we crave infallible knowledge from an infallible source?

One of the truly pioneering aspects of the scientific method is its acknowledged fallibility as a way of knowing. All conclusions in science are held as provisional, and open to reinterpretation or outright rejection upon receipt of future data. Indeed, even such time-honored and central ideas such as the principle of causality and the nature of time and space have undergone relatively recent drastic changes. This is in outright contrast to previous metaphysical paradigms of naturalism, where the philosophy was central and the observations only valuable as ways to demonstrate the central metaphysical paradigm (for example, the idea of humorism, or the various ideas of elementalism). Science admits that people lie and cheat for personal reasons, and even well-meaning people can be deceived, deluded, or just plain wrong; therefore, science always leaves open the possibility that maybe it's conclusions are wrong. Unlike most human endeavors, science thrives on self-criticism (indeed, the regular ego-crushing I receive in my professional life make the attacks on this blog seem like affectionate nips), and is constantly changing itself.

Some theists have suggested that the provisional nature of scientific knowledge is, in and of itself, a weakness; such ideas can often be seen in the comments here at DC. They argue that the provisional nature of science prevents man from ever truly knowing anything (which is often expressed as "science can't prove anything). They further argue that religion offers "absolute truths" that are not subject to future changes, while science is always in flux. As such, they argue that the truth offered by religion is of inherently more value than the truth offered by science.

The trivial response to this argument is that the absolute assertions of religion are only of more value if they are completely true; otherwise, they are absolute falsities (or anti-truths, if you will) and are active hinderances in the search for truth, as they not only fail to be true, but discourage further searching for the truth. This powerful defense leaves the burden of evidence upon those advancing their "absolute truth" and points out the harm in "absolute falsities", but some may find it viscerally unsatisfying, as it leaves intact the potential superiority of religious absolute truth.

However, I wish to proffer an additional argument against the superior value of absolute religous truth, even in the case most favorable to the theist. As I mentioned earlier, the human mind is inherently fallible; this is something that both theists and secularists agree upon (e.g. 1 Corintians 1:17-25). We all agree that mental delusions exist; if a man claims to speak to Napoleon, both theists and secularists agree he is delusional (with the exception of a small number of spiritualists who may be open to the possibility). However, if a man claims to speak to God, we may differ on his mental state. Even most theists, however, will probably agree that not everyone who claims to speak to God actually does; some may be lying, others may be delusional. If you think you may disagree with this premise, then all I must do is claim God spoke to me and told me Jesus wasn't His son, and you must accept it as true. Notwithstanding these objections, we have established that most theists and secularists agree that people who think they have a revelation from God may be wrong; our knowledge as to the validity of personal revelation in and of itself must be fallible.

Now let us turn to the other source of God's revelation to Christians, the Bible. As I said before, we all agree that people's perceptions and minds are eminently fallible. Both theists and secularists have readily admitted that we cannot measure the world with complete accuracy; indeed, there is a physical principle to that effect. Now, I think we all agree that the Bible is a natural phenomenon. I'm not talking about God's Word here; I'm talking about whatever physical book or books (or CDs or other vessel) entitled "The Bible" you use, whatever physical manuscripts people wrote those translations from, etc. We have agreed that we cannot examine the physical world with 100% reliability. This means that our readings are suspect, the translations are suspect, the copies are suspect, etc. as all are based on our understanding of physical reality, and therefore, fallible.

The standard response to this line of reasoning is that God's divine personal revelation to the translators, scribes, and the reader prevents the introduction of meaningful error. However, we have already agreed previously that not everyone that claims to have a revelation from God really does. How can we know if the author AND the scribe AND the translator AND you, the reader (or whoever does your reading and interpretation for you) truly is a recipient of God's revelation?

The typical Christian response: the Bible assures us that it is so. However, remember that we have already established that there is no way to know if the authorship, copying, translation, and interpretation of this passage is correct and divinely inspired. Our understanding of Christianity is either based on personal revelation to a human agent (which is fallible) or a reading of a physical document (which is also fallible). In the end, even the theist must admit that all the foundations of their faith are, at their core, fallible.

Even assuming that God exists, and assuming that he tries to impart absolute truth to humans, the bottleneck is that the recipient is fallible, subject to self-delusion, trickery, deceit, and flat-out error. Therefore, even divine "absolute truth" must be accepted as provisional, as the media through which it is transmitted is eminently and demonstrably fallible, and at best of no greater worth than science. However, so long as religous revelation claims to represent absolute truth, it actively discourages the search for alternative truths, and so still retains the drawbacks of "absolute falsity" without the real benefits and reliability of "absolute truth".

The explosion in naturalistic knowledge occurred primarily due to the development of a method for examining the natural world that insisted upon not only acknowledging but embracing the provisional nature of knowledge and the fallibility of the human experience. I argue that the philosophic understanding of every person can only improve after that person is not only willing but eager to say "I may well be wrong, and I look forward to finding out."

Is God a Bonehead, or What?

I received an email from someone who asks whether God is a bonehead. What do you think?

John, love your blog. It has helped me come out of fundy Christianity of the mennonite persuasion.
Just wondering here. I've never seen this tack taken before:

When God created the angels they must have been perfect along with Satan. Apparently they rebelled, and were subsequently kicked out of heaven, indicating a free will on their parts. So God's plan was fucked up. Then what does he do? He tries again by creating man. Same result, except this time he let an evil serpent into the garden of eden to tempt his second attempt of perfect beings.

Is God really such a bonehead? Two failed attempts here. Funny thing is though, some angels remained loyal. The evil choice of one did not doom them all necessarily, it was a true individual decision. Somehow we weren't granted that same opportunity, we're all doomed by association with adam and eve. Any thoughts?

Jesus Was Not From the Lineage of David!

The ancient and medieval church believed that Jesus’ humanity was a new creation, and therefore sinless. The ancients commonly believed that the woman contributes nothing to the physical being of the baby to be born. Ancient people thought the child was only related to the father. The mother was nothing but a receptacle for the male sperm, which grew to become a child, which we now know to be a false understanding of genetics. Since this is so, it makes a mockery of the attempt to harmonize the genealogies of Jesus given in Luke (3:23-37) and Matthew (1:1-17). They cannot be legitimately harmonized anyway, but the best attempt is to argue that Luke traces Jesus’ royal lineage back through Mary, while Matthew traces his lineage back through Joseph. Even if this is the case, there are additional serious problems:

If Jesus’ royal lineage is to be traced back through Mary, as it’s claimed Luke does, then Mary was just the receptacle of God’s seed, contributing nothing. And if that’s so, how can Jesus legitimately be of the Davidic lineage? However, if Jesus’ royal lineage is to be traced back through Joseph, as it’s claimed Matthew does, and if Joseph was not the father, then we have the same problem. In either case, how can Jesus legitimately be of the Davidic lineage?

Today, with the advent of genetics, most Christian thinkers try to defend the virgin birth on the grounds that the humanity of Jesus was derived from Mary, and his sinlessness and deity were derived from God. Today’s Christian thinkers do this because they now know Mary must have contributed the female egg that made Jesus into a man. But even with this new view, it doesn’t adequately explain how Jesus is a human being, since a human being is conceived when a human male sperm penetrates a human female egg. Until that happens we do not have the complete chromosomal structure required to have a human being in the first place.

The Death of Denial

Lee Randolph's post incited to me post as well. For over 25 years, I sat by while beloved congregational members and families squared off against the most painful, ridiculous and astonishingly godless forms of death. I gave them every prayerful platitude I could. I prayed with tears...and so did hundreds, thousands of others. No answer came from heaven.

During that time, I comforted myself with the concept that I would die and go to heaven...that my life would not end, but would continue with pain, without doubt, without heartache in the presence of a loving God (who never seemed to answer the prayers that were placed so sacrificially on the altar of his promise..."ask anything in My name and I will do it for you."

Today, I no longer have that hope. I believe that one day, sooner than I can imagine it, I will face annihilation. The best part is, I really won't be around long enough to realize that I have been annihilated. I will cease to exist. My consciousness will cease as my physical body dies. There will be no heaven. No eternal life. No god. No reunion with loved ones. It will be over.

I have been called a fool, a coward, and apostate for choosing to accept the inevitability of my annihilation. How cowardly can it be, to turn away from the hope of eternal life based on the evidence? It was inferred by someone on this blogsite (in a comment to a previous post) that I did not seriously want to know the truth. Actually, I did really want to know the truth...and I finally admitted it.

There is no God. The promises of Christianity are lies. Dying people are not healed. Prayers are not answered. Blessings may be found, but only by those who are looking for them on a planet that gives them only by default.

I knew a man, who was a very committed Christian. He died a horrible, agonizing and painful death as the consequence of a brain tumor. His wife and children and thousands of people throughout the state of Florida and the USA prayed daily for this man for years...fasted...wept. No answer from God...unless you count the thoroughly bullshit answer of "yes-no-not now" that is the excuse of evangelicals who feel as if they must defend their idiotic faith in a God who so blatantly breaks his promises. A seemingly answered prayer can be an accident of chance; an unanswered prayer by a god who promises to answer all prayers in his name is the only proof needed that there is no god there.

Good, faithful, diligent, loving, compassionate, biblically literate, tithing, moral, prayerful, Republican...and most of all, they have accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. They pray, they weep, they join with others...NOTHING.

NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING.

That is why I accept that one day, I will be nothing. You will be nothing. Bug food. A lost memory to generations yet to come. A plot of cloth and wood and bone matter, scraped away by a developer in some upcoming subdivision.

Ernst Becker wrote the seminal book of the 20th century (IMHO) "The Denial of Death." Christianity, all religions, are just attempts to deny the reality of personal annihilation, to rage against the dying of the light. I don't fault for them that, just for the false hope they cause in people who otherwise suffer when they watch their loved ones die.

"Tie me at the crossroads when I die,
hang me in the wind till I get good and dry.
And the kids who pass will scatch their heads and say...
'who was that guy?"
Tie me at the crossroads when I die."
- Bruce Cockburn

"I'm not a slave to a god that doesn't exist!
I'm not a slave to a world that doesn't give a shit!
The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions a statistic."
- Brian Warner (aka, Marilyn Manson)

It's killing me watching them trying to make sense out of it.

Dear God,
While I sit here, fat, dumb and happy, doing my best to muster up blasphemy, you are kicking my God fearing family around till they are bleeding. This is my appeal on their behalf.

You know what you are doing, and you know what I'm talking about. She didn't need this right now. Afraid of dying with cancer, doing chemo, getting pieces cut off and her husband has a stroke. The third one has a cancer too, and they all watched their mother choke to death in her own spit praising you with her last breath, but praying for death. They all do at the end don't they? At least all the ones I've seen. At least all the ones I've loved. That is, if their not shooting themselves in the head. If you're going to take them anyway, why wait? THEY GOT THE PUNCH LINE. ENOUGH ALREADY.

Why don't you take me? What is your problem? Is it some kind of hostage situation or is it that you test the ones you love the most? Do you punish the perfect ones for the sins of the wretched? Its some kind of sick joke isn't it. Its killing me watching them trying to make sense out of it. You know I won't complain and lament "why, why, why" because I have the comfort of not believing in you to get me through it. They keep saying "keep us in your prayers" like you don't know whats going on or like we can change your mind. If you take me, no harm done, I will know that I am just a statistic, and its nothing personal. But them. THEY LOVE YOU! KNOCK IT OFF!

What? Oh, I'm sorry Mr. Chance, I mistook you for Jesus. Do you know where I can find Jesus? He's not answering his calls. There's some of his people that could use some comfort right about now and I can't bring myself to try to share mine with them.

Nebraska State Senator Sues God

Link. I know this lawsuit is partially political, but think of the balls this guy has! And I know Christians will laugh, but there is just something about the brashness of these "New Atheists" who are getting the rest of us some attention, even if it's negative attention. It worked for gays. Why won't it work for atheists? See below:

LINCOLN, Neb. - The defendant in a state senator's lawsuit is accused of causing untold death and horror and threatening to cause more still. He can be sued in Douglas County, the legislator claims, because He's everywhere.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers sued God last week. Angered by another lawsuit he considers frivolous, Chambers says he's trying to make the point that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody.

Chambers says in his lawsuit that God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

The Omaha senator, who skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians, also says God has caused "fearsome floods ... horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes."

He's seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty.

The 100% Challenge

As a pastor, I often made reference in my sermons to the “astounding prophecies of the Bible,” which I believed proved the deity of Christ and the divine inspiration of Scripture beyond a reasonable doubt. It was my sincere conviction that if an unbeliever examined, for example, the Messianic prophecies embedded in the Old Testament with an open mind, he would walk away a convert to Christ. How many prophecies are we talking about here? Well, that depends on who you ask. Jews for Jesus point to several dozen Messianic prophecies, while Josh McDowell in Evidence that Demands a Verdict claims “over 300 references to the messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus.” According to ChristianAnswers.Net, “The probability that Jesus of Nazareth could have fulfilled even eight such prophecies would be only 1 in 1017” (that's 10 to the power of 17).

For decades, I accepted this standard defense of the Christian faith without question. It was not until a Bible class earlier this year that serious doubts about the Messianic prophecies began to bubble to the surface. I was teaching through John's Gospel, verse by verse, when the class came to chapter 19 and verse 36 ("These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: Not one of his bones will be broken"). Someone asked me about the original prophecy, so I followed my index finger to the handy-dandy cross reference and arrived at Psalm 34:20. Ah, here I would be able to show the class one of the "astounding" prophecies of Scripture that "proves beyond a doubt" that Jesus was the Christ. What I discovered was, shall we say, underwhelming:

19 A righteous man may have many troubles,
but the LORD delivers him from them all;

20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.

This is certainly an inspiring verse of Scripture, but you would have to be a fool to take it as a prophecy of the Messiah. I was left in the truly awkward position of explaining to the class why John took a verse like this and wrenched it so violently from its original context (something I've preached against for years). As we went along, I noticed other misquoted passages the Gospel writer applied to Jesus. I was quite embarrassed--not for myself, but for the apostle John! This got me to wondering--how many other claims of prophetic fulfillment are not just a little bit off, but way off?

Here's why this question is so important to evangelical Christianity: if the Messianic prophecies fail, the entire Christian foundation erodes away with it (see Deut. 18:22). The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) recognizes this: “How do you respond to someone's claim that the Bible is not inspired? Is there a way to prove inspiration or, at least, intelligently present evidence for its inspiration? The answer is, ‘Yes!’ One of the best ways to prove inspiration is by examining prophecy.”

Got that? Christians say that you can evaluate the Bible’s claims of divine inspiration by whether or not it accurately records actual instances of fulfilled prophecy. CARM continues: “If just one prophecy failed, then we would know that God is not the true God, because the creator of all things, which includes time, would not be wrong about predicting the future.”

So, does everyone understand the rules of the game? If we can find just one bogus prophecy—one instance where the Bible says something is going to happen a certain way and it doesn’t pan out—this is all a reasonable person needs to demonstrate the Bible is human, not divine, in origin. Put another way, if there were 100 Bible prophecies and 99 were shown to be right on the money, 1 wrong prophecy would be enough to spoil a 100% perfect record. If the Messianic prophecies are shady in any way, then the Bible is not the perfect product of a perfect God (as millions believe today). Perhaps most significant, without 100% accuracy of the Messianic passages, Jesus cannot be the One sent from heaven to redeem the world.

Now that we have our challenge, can we find one bogus prophecy? Well, here's where it gets tough: choosing just one! Let’s start in Matthew, who is prolific in his quotation Old Testament prophecies and his application of them to Jesus. Should we build our case on a passage like Matthew 2:23? It says of Jesus, “And he came and dwelt in the city called Nazareth , that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.’” I'm sad to say that in my 20 years as a Christian, I never realized that Matthew makes reference to a prophecy that doesn’t even exist! Try as you may, you will nowhere find a place in the Old Testament where it unambiguously declares the Messiah would be a Nazarene.

How about the (in)famous example of Isaiah 7:14? Matthew uses this prophecy as the cornerstone of his Gospel, quoting Isaiah as saying, “Behold, the virgin shall be with child.” However, the word Matthew translates "virgin" would be more accurately translated “young woman.” The Jews had a very specific word for virgin (bethulah), but it was not the word Isaiah chose (ha-almah). Holy disappearing virgin, Batman! Further examination of the chapter reveals that the promised child of Isaiah 7:14 was to be a sign to Ahaz, a Judean king who lived centuries before Jesus was even born!

Or how about this one: Matthew’s claim that King Herod slaughtered “all the male children who were in Bethlehem and its vicinity, from two years old and under” (Matthew 2:16). Every Sunday school student knows this story (one Bible class lesson titles this episode, “Babies Give Their Lives for Jesus”). As a minister, I searched desperately to substantiate this story with the Jewish histories of Josephus or with any secular historian of that era--only to realize that there is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence behind it. To add insult to injury, Matthew (or whoever wrote under his name) would have us believe that this fanciful tale was also a fulfillment of ancient prophecy. He quotes Jeremiah 31:15: “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more.” Once again, a careful reading of the entire chapter in its context reveals that Jeremiah is talking about a situation far removed from Bethlehem, Herod, and the Magi. He is describing the struggles of the Israelites during the Babylonian Captivity. The few verses after verse 15 bear this out:

15 This is what the LORD says:
"A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because her children are no more."

16 This is what the LORD says:
"Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,"
declares the LORD.
"They will return from the land of the enemy.

17 So there is hope for your future,"
declares the LORD.
"Your children will return to their own land.”

Clearly the Gospel writer was stretching it a bit (read: a lot)!

No doubt, I will hear from outraged Christians who cannot understand how a minister so in-tune with the Bible, from a conservative Christian denomination, can question these prophecies. Well, please understand that there are fair-minded, rational people out there who do have trouble with them. The man whose question sparked this search was not a skeptic, but a respected deacon of my church.

That having been said, I’m interested in what Christians perusing this forum see as so irrefutable about the so-called Messianic prophecies about Jesus. If the standard for prophecy is 100% accuracy—no misses—then (as Ricky Ricardo would say) "someone’s got some 'splaining to do!"

The Ditch That Is A Wall

Faith. That is what it all comes down to.

In seminary, we learned about "the teleological gap." Or, as Kierkegaard called it, the "existential break." You know...that moat that surrounds the castle of ultimate knowledge. You can go so far, and further you cannot go. Christians have created a drawbridge, and they call it "faith." It is a long, long bridge. It requires turning off the critical faculty at a very early stage in the journey. How did we get here? God created. What is our purpose? God decides. How do you know? Faith.

For Christians, the existential break is a ditch that is a wall. Faith, the drawbridge that seems to so wonderfully cross the gap, is actually a delusion. It is, instead, a wall. It so thoroughly and completely stops the forward motion of learning, understanding, expanding and adapting that it is in essence a form of death.

The vast majority of Christians that I know, who are proudly walking across the drawbridge of faith, are also becoming closed-minded, literalist, and judgmental. They quickly skew to conservative; they believe that they have the corner on morality (an atheist or agnostic cannot be moral, can they?) and they gravitate towards David Chilton and theocracy...how else can we keep the favor of God on our country unless we establish a theocratic government?

Why? Because they have turned off their rational mind, and are now in the monstrous grip of "faith." For some, faith meant that they could pray and find a parking lot at the mall, or cause a bible to float in the air. Faith is delusional, by its very nature. I heard Christian apologists say "faith is knowing something that you cannot see." Delusional.

So, if you choose to "know something that you cannot see" - it leads to accepting that which you cannot know. And accepting that which you cannot know leads to vulnerability to manipulation and extremism. Note how easily Christians are conformists to Republican political agendas and television evangelist insanity (to the tune of over $10 billion given to TV evangelists in one year!). How they are manipulated by personalities, and turn off reasoning when it comes to the inconsistencies of their leaders.

Certainly, Christians are not the only ones who do this sort of thing...but then again, I have never heard a Republican say "The GOP is the way, the truth, the life...no one can have a relationship to God except through us." (Well, at least, not yet!). Christians claim to believe and embrace the most fundamental and necessary truth in the universe...believe in Jesus or go to hell for eternity, and miss out on God's purpose for your creation on earth. Their claim to ABSOLUTE TRUTH qualifies them for greater scrutiny and greater criticism. If you claim to have the ONE AND ONLY TRUTH about the spiritual world...then you better be able to stand the fire.

The very essence of Christianity demands FAITH...demands DELUSION.

Christians have crossed the ditch and have splattered themselves on a wall. Do we try and clean up the mess?

Reasonable Doubt about The Atonement: Psychopathy

This is intended as the first of a series exploring Biological Bases of Behavior and its implications for Christianity. The focus of this article is on Psychopathy and its implications regarding the Atonement.

It explains that psychopathy is regarded alternately as an emotional disorder and/or a genetically selected sub-population of people that cannot feel love, empathy or remorse. It shows that it is inherited and likely has a genetic component. It discusses the correlation with differences in amygdala function between this population and the mean. Considering Matt. 22:37s commandment to love God with all your heart, soul and mind, the question becomes, what happens to the psychopath in this process? According to the explanation of the Atonement, it may cover their sins, but they cannot meet the requirement to love God, and repent.

This link provides a great overview of Evangelical views of Atonement. It was written by John W. Loftus to show how viewpoints of Atonement are linked to the cultural values of their period. And here is a different article from another blogger with a similar topic to this one. It argues that modern cognitive science leaves little room for the existence of a "soul."

Christianity depends on the belief that Christ died for our sins. From the perspective of the Evangelical all the sins of all of the people in the world past, present and future went onto Christ and when he died, he died as atonement for the sins of the past, present and future people of the world. People are predisposed to sin rather than follow Gods law. People are predisposed to behave in a way that is not consistent with Gods law.
How did people get that way? Was it the original sin of disobeying Gods law in the garden of Eden or was it something that happened as a result of the way we are made?

Allegedly Jesus died for us so we won’t have to, yet people are predisposed to sin for biological reasons as much as for “moral” reasons. For God to have gone to the trouble to become Man and go through the crucifixion it seems like he should have eliminated biological bases for behavior that make it likely that people will disobey Him. If he had done that it would have become purely a moral question.

God created humans along with the world. So it follows that he made us this way. To say that he didn’t infers that something changed the initial state of our nature. If something changed, what was it? If we stipulate that Adam and Eve were real, and if we say that the decision to eat the Apple was made by Adam and Eve, how did the thought even arise in them to disobey God unless it occurred naturally? If it would not have occurred naturally but it was the result of a deception by Satan, then either they had no clue what they were doing and we are suffering the problem of evil for their stupidity or they had the mechanism built in to disobey God. The circuitry was in place to entertain the idea of disregarding the importance of obeying God. I’m sure if they had more life experience or had a concept of what the implications would be they would not have done it, but that is an argument for another time. So it appears that we had the propensity to disobey God built in. Let’s call it freewill.

To say that Humans choose to disobey God infers that we know what God wants in the first place. I will stipulate for the purpose of this article that we should be able to understand how God wants us to behave from scripture.

What does God want from us?

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38. This is the first and great commandment." Matthew 22:37

And some others follow.
Love one another as we love ourselves, to act justly, to love mercy, to keep the commandments, obey God, believe God, trust God, know God, seek God, repent, strive to overcome our nature and have faith.

These words were written by people that did not understand the properties of the brain. These words were written before the discovery of principles that demonstrably affect behavior such as not being able to process emotional information or being genetically predisposed to disease. Severe mental disorder was thought to be the result of spirits. These words were written before anyone knew that the emotional disorder of Psychopathy was possible.

If we know that mental processes can be affected by influences other than internal thoughts, then that casts doubt on the whole concept of absolute free will. If we stipulate that there is a non-absolute type of freewill available to everyone, then we can see that there is a varying degree of freewill accessible by everyone. What degree of freewill does a Psychopath have? What degree of free will does a Sociopath have? What degree of free will does a person with depression have? What degree of freewill does a person have that has a tumor that affects mental processes? What degree of free will do you have? The functioning of the Brain can be altered by chemicals and trauma as much as it can by a persons internal thought processes, environment and culture. Decision making processes including those relating to morality can be handicapped by the structure of the brain itself. One aspect of freewill is accessibility to options. When your options are limited by the environment or by your cognitive abilities, your freewill is limited proportionally.

If you can force a Psychopath to behave according to Gods Law, you can’t change his "heart" (motivation), because he is born that way and there is no known therapy to counteract it. There is no way to get him to feel love or loyalty to God so from the start, the biblical mechanism for redemption for the psychopath is flawed. There is no scriptural mechanism for the salvation of the psychopath.

A popular rebuttal to this problem is that God can save anyone he chooses to through his grace. He will save those that are incapable of understanding that allegedly Jesus sacrifice on the cross was their way to salvation. There are several problems with that view.

First, typically Evangelicals, believe in the Doctrine of Original Sin, that we are born into sin such as described by David in Psalm 51:5. We do not need to learn how to sin, it comes naturally through Adams sin. Only learning about Jesus and believing saves you. Jesus was the Second Adam. Non-Evangelicals will point to an interpretation about Davids baby and a belief that god will do the right thing. However nowhere is this problem specifically addressed in the Bible. Scriptural evidence better supports the assertion that they are not saved.

Second, non-Evangelicals believe that passages such as 1 Cor 7:14 can be interpreted that children will be saved if they die before they can understand the Gospel. But the Evangelical understanding of that passage does not mean saved. It means being made ritually clean in the sense of Jewish law in the case that an believer marries an unbeliever. They are made ritually clean, and the marriage and children are acceptable to God, which is not the same thing and significantly less important than salvation.

Third. Romans 2:14 - 15 talks about the law written on our hearts. Commonly called "the law of conscience". It is a type of Universal Moral Law written on our hearts as a result of being made in Gods Image. It is independent of the saving grace of Jesus, it is enough to condemn however, and it supports the view of Original Sin.

Fourth, allegedly Jesus as the "the perfect sacrifice" was ultimately pleasing enough to god to forgive everyones sin and give them a fresh start. They are still born into sin but they the get the chance at salvation because of His sacrifice on the cross. Psychopaths are incapable of repentance or loyalty to God. However, since psychopaths exist, then that means the sacrifice while maybe technically perfect, wasn't effectively perfect.

Now with these premises in mind, lets discuss some outcomes.

If say that we don't know what god will do with babies and the psychopath, then we have fundamentally weakened the concept of the Atonement and Original Sin. It was supposed to be the way to salvation for everyone, a reconciliation with god.

So if Non-Evangelicals are right and we are qualified to say that God will do the right thing and save the 'incapable', it raises the question of "the right thing" by whose standards? Ours or His? I see this view as contradicting the Christian "Test" solution to the Problem of Evil/Suffering; that even the rape and murder of children work out for the greater good but we can't know how that happens, and also that good is defined by god and we can't understand that either, and that is why so many acts of god look evil to us. It undermines the idea that the Evil in the world is a test for us. If God can save anyone he wants, and the Psychopath, or the criminally insane can run around and do hideous things with no remorse and still get saved, then this view of salvation is terribly unfair. The freewill of the innocent, or not so innocent can be undermined by a sub-group of people that can do anything and still be saved. If we say that god will do the right thing in principle by saving babies and the psychopath then we have set a precedent to say that we are competent to judge when god would do the right thing. Using that warrant I will say that raping and murdering children is not the right thing and does not lead to the greater good therefore the Problem Or Evil cancels God out because a benevolent God should not permit that.

If we are going to say that god will not save the psychopath or baby, then most people would find that unconscionable, we can add to our list of Problem of Evil grievances, and we have fundamentally weakened the concept of the Atonement and Original Sin because it was supposed to be the way to salvation for everyone, a reconciliation with god.I think the problem of unsaved babies, and the psychopath, is an unhandled exception that halts the system.

Through research in psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience and genetics it is becomingly increasingly clear that behavior is not only a matter of wanting to do the right thing, it depends on having an internal mechanism that supports it.

I used a podcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as a basis for this article. The podcast was called “Inside the Mind of a Psychopath”. The reason I chose Psychopathy as the first topic for this series was because Psychopathy is clinically considered an emotional disorder that disrupts empathy. Psychopaths are not able to Love and therefore not able to follow the First Great Commandment from Matt. 22:37.

In the synopsis of the interviews that follow, the various researchers give their perspectives on Psychopathy.

Dr. Robert Hare says the psychopath is not what the media portrays. They are individuals that are intact but at the core, lack emotional concern or empathy for other people. They don’t understand that other people have rights. They don’t feel remorse or guilt. They lack a conscience and this can’t be explained in intellectual deficiency, psychosis, mental illness or brain damage.
Traits that make up a Psychopath are shared with Psychotic and Sociopathic personalities but some traits make them distinct from each other. Psychotic personalities are considered delusional, and Sociopathic personalities have the ability to feel remorse or guilt.

Psychopaths know exactly what they are doing but they just don’t care. Psychotics are not aware that what they are doing is wrong. The term Sociopath describes the “hardcore” criminal. Some psychopaths are also sociopaths, or hardcore criminals, but they don’t feel remorse.

Traits that collectively describe a Psychopath are a shallow emotional life, they are fairly superficial people, they use deceit to intimidate and control other people, they tend to be fairly dominant in controlling people, they have enormous sense of entitlement (they believe everything is due to them), they are fairly impulsive in a controlled sense, they lead a nomadic lifestyle, they commit a lot of irresponsible behavior, promiscuity, lying and they have a need for excitement. None of these traits individually warrant the diagnosis of psychopathy, but collectively they do. All these traits make up the personality of a person that would find it easy to violate social norms of behavior but not necessarily to the degree of criminality.

Dr. James Blair believes that psychopathy is an emotional disorder, comparable to depression and anxiety. He is convinced that their behavior is a result of the difference in how their brains work. Types of emotional learning are impaired. They don’t process emotional information properly. The way that emotions interact with attention to process objects in the environment, and the way that emotions interact with decision making is interrupted. They are not as good at recognizing facial expressions as non-psychopaths.

Some children exhibit psychopathic tendencies. Dr. Blair is performing MRI studies on them to see the differences in their brains. Children are less likely to have had strong environmental influences in their behavior. One of the tests is to recognize facial expressions. Children with psychopathic traits show a reduced response in the amygdala compared to children without psychopathic traits. The amygdala are also important in feeling fear. So it may explain why psychopaths are not afraid of getting caught if they commit a crime, and their apparent lack of conscience. If a person has trouble interpreting how someone else feels, it would be almost impossible to have empathy, and learn the difference between good and bad behavior.

Dr. Blair believes that since psychoapthy is an emotional disorder, and since emotional disorders respond well to pharmacological treatments, once the systems that cause psychopathy are understood, it is likely that it can be treated pharmacologically.

Dr. Essi Viding says that children with psychopathic traits differ from children with anti-social behavior. They lack empathy for people they offend and rarely feel bad about what they’ve done. Children with psychopathic traits will deliberately hurt other children especially if they are perceived as being weak or needing protection. Sometimes they will hurt other children for amusement and not feel bad about it. If they feel bad, they feel bad about getting caught. They usually blame others for their own actions, they can be cruel to animals and they seem to have a slightly odd emotional profile. They are superficially charming in an attempt to manipulate people to their own ends but don’t actually show sincere affection and can change their loyalties quickly. She conducted studies on twins that show that the traits are largely inherited. She and her colleague are planning to look for genetic markers in DNA to identify risk factors for psychopathy in the same way that certain gene combinations identify risk factors for heart disease.

Dr. Marnie Rice believes there is a genetic basis for psychopathy and believes that it was evolutionarily selected for. While she acknowledges that psychopathic behavior is outside the mean for average human behavior, she sees it not as a disorder but as a natural variation within the human genome. In some ways it made for an evolutionarily “fitter” person. She thinks psychopaths have evolved to fill an evolutionary niche. The only required behavior to make evolution work is to successfully pass on your genes. Promiscuity and lack of empathy are traits of psychopaths and this leads to mating and reproduction. They tend to start having sex earlier, and tend to move between partners frequently. Barring any inhibiting factors, psychopaths are likely to have more offspring than non psychopaths. Dr. Rice’s research into psychopathic sexual preferences show they are selectively interested in post-pubescent females. They are not as likely to be interested in the same sex or children. Psychopaths are most successful in environments where they can remain anonymous and jump from mate to mate. The city is a perfect place for that behavior.

Changing the behavior of psychopaths using typical therapy doesn’t work. Some traditional therapy makes them worse. After treatment they have a higher likelihood of repeating the offending behavior. They use what they learn in therapy to gain an advantage to increase the successful outcome of their subsequent behavior.

In summary, I repeat, if a psychopath can be forced to behave according to Gods Law, his motivation (“heart”) can’t change, because he is born that way and there is no known therapy to counteract it. There is no way to get him to feel love or loyalty to god so from the start, the biblical mechanism for redemption for the psychopath is flawed. There is no scriptural mechanism for the salvation of the psychopath.

REFERENCES

Atonement Theories and Cultural Understandings.
The Soul: A Rational Belief?
CBC Radio: Inside the mind of a psychopath (scroll down to the bottom of the page when you get there)
Wikipedia on Psychopathy
Dr. Hares webpage
Dr. Blairs webpage
Dr. Viding’s webpage
Dr. Rice’s book on this topic
The Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy
Dr. Porters Webpage

Biblical Scholarship and The Lord's Prayer

On Sunday many churches will repeat the Lord’s Prayer in their worship services. Catholics will use the one we find in Matthew from the KJV, along with the last phrase not found in many of the earliest manuscripts, while Protestants will combine the two using Luke’s word “sins” instead of Matthew’s word “debts.” [Click on the image].

But in this simple example of what believers should pray we find many of the difficulties with which Biblical scholars wrestle. What prayer did Jesus actually teach his disciples to pray? The prayer itself is memorable, and not likely to have been forgotten, as evidenced by most believers today, and yet here we have two versions of it. Mark’s gospel is accepted by the overwhelming number of scholars to have been written first. Scholars wrestle with the authorship and dating of the books in the Bible, for they can provide a clue to interpreting them. But why didn’t Mark include this prayer? It seems to be a glaring omission on his part since the prayer itself is so memorable, not unlike the “I am” sayings of Jesus in John’s later gospel. Such memorable things are hard to explain why only the later gospel writers remember them enough to write them down.

Look at the differences themselves. Christians will argue there are no contradictions here, and depending on how one defines a contradiction that’s probably true, except for the fact that we don’t know what Jesus actually said. If the gospel writers were supposed to tell us exactly what Jesus said then they did not do this. If inerrancy requires no errors then this is indeed an error. Now there are indeed Bible difficulties. There are so many that Gleason Archer wrote a 380 page book to deal with them, called the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, and even then he didn’t deal with them all, by any means.

Translators debate among themselves whether or not they should translate the exact words, as the American Standard Version does, or translate the intent of the sentence. Do they translate the passage literally even though modern people may not understand it, (what is the “heart,” the “evil eye”) or do they translate it so that modern people can understand it, given their own present understandings? This is the known as the dynamic vs static translator debate. Given the fact that most linguists agree that the basic unit of meaning is the sentence, not the word, today’s translators translate passages more fluidly and loosely. So now the question is how loosely should these passages be translated? Pioneer Bible Translator missionaries have to wrestle with this. On one mission field an African tribe believed that the throat was the seat of life and thought. So should they translate the word “heart” as “throat,” or not?

Evangelical Christian scholars admit that we do not have the very words of Jesus. [Instead they argue that we have the “voice” of Jesus through the gospel writers, whatever that means]. There are several reasons for this admission: 1) There was a period of oral tradition where word of mouth passed on the stories and sayings of Jesus (30-40-60 years); 2) There is the acknowledged fact that the gospel writers wrote to the needs of the church at their time (known as the sitz im Leben, or “situation in life”); 3) Luke’s (1:1-4) own admission that there were several written accounts of Jesus which he used to construct his own account.; 4) Jesus spoke in Aramaic, so his words would have been first translated into Greek; 5) Since the verbal agreement among the gospels is very close in the Greek when they relate the same story, these stories were already in Greek before they reached the gospel writers. So again, what exactly are the words we should use when saying the Lord’s Prayer?

Look at the whole verse missing from Luke’s later gospel. The rest of the prayer is pretty much the same in the Greek, but why delete this verse? What exactly is there about the phrase, “your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” that didn’t fit with Luke’s gospel to the poor and downtrodden? Could it be that since ancient people believed God’s will is done through the rulers and kings of the earth (see Romans 13:1-2) that it would offend the very people Luke was writing for? Scholars ask these types of questions. And why did Luke replace the word “debts” with “sins?” Could it be that the poor had no debts to forgive? Scholars think Matthew wrote down “debts” because he was a tax collector, if it was actually Matthew who wrote the gospel. But how do we explain this “discrepancy? That Matthew got it wrong? That he “translated” what Jesus actually said into terms he could understand? That Jesus repeated this prayer several times but that on some occasions he used the word “debts” while on other occasions he used the word “sins”? How likely is that? When it comes to the words of Jesus, a complete harmonization of what he said and what others said in response to him cannot be done. It’s more likely that Luke changed the word “debts” to “sins” for his readers. What else did he change? Since Luke was not one of the apostles, why should we accept this change? Who or what guarantees that Luke’s gospel is inspired? He's not an apostle and he never claims his work is inspired.

Look finally at the manuscript footnoted differences, as well as the translation differences. Bart Ehman’s book, Misquoting Jesus will give you a good overview of the manuscript differences.

These sorts of scholarly questions can be duplicated for almost every story in the Synoptic Gospels, and it leads many to think we have a patchwork of sources to learn about Jesus. Some scholars conclude from this we know little about what Jesus actually said and did!

Look at the five stages of the gospel tradition:

STAGE ONE: Oral Traditions Stemming From Eyewitnesses: Stories about Jesus and what he taught circulated among early Christians. At some point they began to write these stories down and circulated them as independent units, probably as a way to teach and disciple others. Form Criticism tries to determine which stories were earlier by evaluating the stories themselves according to their form and style. The working assumption is that the earlier stories would be more accurate because of the tendency of people to lengthen their stories by adding details to them to fit the needs of the progressing Christian community, as we just saw in Luke.

STAGE TWO: Written Accounts of Jesus:Eventually Christians needed a written account containing these stories in an orderly whole, and according to Luke there were “many” of them. Source Criticism seeks to understand what written sources, if any, the evangelists used in compiling their gospels. In the first three gospels there are a number of passages that contain exact verbal agreement, but there are also many differences in verbal agreement. Likewise, there is a certain sequence of events usually adopted by the writers, but quite a divergence in sequence as well. So the goal is to seek an hypothesis that best accounts for both exact agreement and yet wide divergences in these gospels. According to most scholars the oral traditions were gathered together in the form of teaching material for new converts. This teaching was complied into a document dubbed “Q” (short for “Quelle or “source”). Early tradition says Matthew wrote the first gospel in the Aramaic language. Mark wrote his gospel from the content of Peter’s preaching, we're told. Matthew may have later transformed his Aramaic gospel into a Greek gospel using Mark and “Q.” Luke used several sources, including “Q” Mark, Matthew and perhaps a separate source. This is the “two-source” hypothesis and is widely accepted today. This is a fine way for God to inspire a book, eh?

STAGE THREE: The Final Composition of the Gospels: The gospel writers have written (or edited) these stories to form a whole Gospel account of Jesus with a different emphasis (or purpose) to meet the needs of the particular Christian community at the time they were written (known as the Sitz im Leben). In so doing each gospel writer relates different events in the life of Jesus with a differing chronology of the events they chose to include—events that help them stress their particular point of view. Redaction Criticism seeks to describe these purposes by analyzing the way they use their sources, and comparing the final product with the time and place and people to whom it was written. Luke, for instance, heavily emphasizes the poor, women, and the downtrodden in the life of Jesus, whereas John's gospel hardly says anything about them. So the question becomes this: What did Jesus actually emphasize in his ministry if it's filtered through the eys of the gospel writers? Even if they were all inspired we still cannot determine with a great deal of confidence what Jesus actually stressed.

STAGE FOUR: The Transmission of the Texts of the Gospels. Again see Bart Erhman’s book for details about this.

STAGE FIVE: The Canonization of the New Testament Itself and the variety of early Christianities.

This is enough for now. But as Ehrman argued, this looks entirely like a human not a divine process. It really does! Christians must believe that God guided this whole process from start to finish when it involved so many uninspired people (the original stories, Q, copyists, church canonical pronouncements, etc). The funny thing about this, to me anyway, is that while Christians believe God guided this whole process perfectly, they also deny God hinders the free will of man when it comes to the amount of suffering we experience at the hands of others. Why would God do one thing and not do another?