If You have Faith Now, Sex and Wealth Are Yours in Heaven!

We atheists are often accused of not having morals or ethics and, since this life is all we have, atheists are considered as indulging in all the sensual pleasures we can cram into this short life time.

But both the text and traditions of the two major monotheistic religions (Christianity and Islam) prove that if the faithful - especially Islamic men- are deterred by the stick (Hell) and lured by the carrot (Heaven), then much of what is labeled sin in the here and now can be part of the eternal lustful reward in Heaven.

Lets look at a few so-called earthly sins in the Christian-Islamic religious traditions.

Sexual Desires on Earth in Islam: Very Bad!

In conservative Islamic countries, men are not to look at woman in the eyes for fear of exciting sexual feelings and urges. Thus, women are often confined to their houses, denied an education and, if they leave their houses, they must (in many conservative religious Moslem countries) be covered often with the berka from heard to toe to keep men from any sexual lustful thoughts.

Covering of the female can be a basic hijab to the full face covering of the burqa. Woman are not to be seen except by her husband and as one Pashto phrase states: “A woman belongs in the house - or in a grave.”

Sexual Desires in Heaven in Islam: Very Good!

“Two points need to be noted. First, there is no mention anywhere in the Koran of the actual number of virgins available in paradise, and second, the dark-eyed damsels are available for all Muslims, not just martyrs.”

…and…

“Modern apologists of Islam try to downplay the evident materialism and sexual implications of such descriptions, but, as the Encyclopaedia of Islam says, even orthodox Muslim theologians such as al Ghazali (died 1111 CE) and Al-Ash'ari (died 935 CE) have "admitted sensual pleasures into paradise". The sensual pleasures are graphically elaborated by Al-Suyuti (died 1505 ), Koranic commentator and polymath. He wrote: ‘Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [ie Muslim] will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas.’”

[I must admit that after reading the statement “Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint.” the Lord immediately started dealing with my heart. I really think the Lord is calling me to be a Moslem!] (Quoted from here)

Wealth on Earth in Christianity: Very Bad!

The Jesus of the Gospels is an itinerate preacher who owns nothing (Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." Matt. 8: 20).

Tells anyone who follows him to do the same (Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me. But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. " Mark 10: 21-22).

Warns about loving wealth and getting into Heaven (“For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Luke 18: 25).

Jesus teaches a “Social Gospel” on sharing of wealth the Jewish punishment if you don’t (19 “Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20 “And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, … Luke 16: 19 -31).

Wealth in Heaven in Christianity: Very Good!

God has a mansion in Heaven with a dedicated room for each faithful believer (2 “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places (Greek: rooms); if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3 “If I go and prepare a place for you… John 14: 1-3 Talk about Circular Reasoning!)

While the faithful are forbidden to love and horde wealth on earth, in Heaven greed is king as the faithful’s material lust is filled to over flowing (19 The foundation stones of the city wall were adorned with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation stone was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; 20 the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprase; the eleventh, jacinth; the twelfth, amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the gates was a single pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass. Rev. 21: 19 - 21).

Jesus said: “Rejoice and be glad because you have a great reward in heaven!” (Matt. 5: 12a)

Yea, right! Unlimited sex for the faithful Moslem and unlimited wealth for the faithful Christian.

Do I see religious hypocrisy here or is it just because my atheistic mind is not warped by religious righteous thinking?

Preacher Dane Eidson Declares Himself an Atheist!

Dane credits Joe E. Holman for giving him the courage to do so and he recommends my book.

Dane wrote:

Many of you know me as the Rev. Dane Eidson. Others of you know me as the former President/CEO of a 501(c)3 non profit Organization "Because of Calvary, Inc." Others know me as the former host of a local cable TV program called "Out of the Box" that was seen in the southeastern parts of Georgia and anywhere through the internet.

What I am about to state is honest and not a sudden decision on my part. This has been my belief for years. I been living and preaching what I knew was a lie. I have denied and ran from my belief because I was scared to admit this publically. I was afraid of hurting my family and friends and did not want to face what my family would think of me. I was afraid of what could be the consequences of making public my belief.

Okay...Here's the "big announcement." I am an atheist. I do not believe in God or any other type of diety. I do not believe in a Supreme Being. I once did. But no longer. There is no God, there is no afterlife, there are no spirits. We exist purely by chance and by accident. We are the products of an evolution of a great event, "The Big Bang." Evolution is a fact and belief in a god is the product on man himself.

IDQ Flaw of Meaninglessness Representation In The Bible

Very little in the Bible can be understood as it is written. To be understood as relevant and applicable to today necessitates speculation, interpretation and pre-processing for general consumption. The Bible, as it is written, has become meaningless even though Church leaders try to speculate, interpret and derive meaning from it. Since Christian leaders don't agree, large portions of the data in the Bible is demonstrably meaningless which is a result of the Information and Data Quality flaw of "Meaningless Representation".

This Article is part seven of the series of articles applying Information and Data Quality (IDQ) Principles to the Bible. The purpose of the series is to show that the Bible is not a reliable or trustworthy source of information about God because it has problems from its origin identified in Information and Data Quality research as causing inaccuracy and unreliability. Links to the previous articles are listed below.

1. How Accurate is the Bible?
2. Applying Data and Information Quality Principles To The Bible
3. Applying IDQ Principles of Research To The Bible
4. Overview of IDQ Deficiencies Which Are Evident In Scripture
5. Jesus As God From IDQ Design Deficincies
6. "Son of Man" As Jesus From IDQ Deficiencies

A brief review of Meaningless Representation(1) follows.

Meaningless representation
When the information system contains superfluous information then it can lead to a situation where the Information System does not accurately represent (map back to) a real world state. For example this can occur by the use of too many descriptive terms, undefined terms or some minor addition to the story intended as an elaboration. Meaningless states can still represent Real World states properly, however it is not a good design in principle to include meaningless data if for no other reason than users may expend resources and make commitments based on the data only to later discover the data to be meaningless. For example, the ancient Greek historian Heroditus, while accurate to a large degree, is known to have exaggerated and to have uncritically included information from apparently unreliable sources.

Figure 1 illustrates this point by showing two instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and three instances of Data in the D column. One instance of an information state is not represented by or does not map back to a real world state .

Figure 1



Operation Deficiencies - Garbling:
Meaningless State
In human terms, garbling occurs at the point of "consumption" or reading and interpretation. In Information Systems, it occurs at operation time or when the database is being accessed. Garbling occurs when a Real World state is incorrectly mapped to a wrong state in the Information System. There are two cases in which this occurs. If a meaningless state exists, then Real World mapping will be to a meaningless state, or the mapping might be to a meaningful but incorrect information state. This can occur as a result of inaccurate data entry or omissions of real world states at the creation or origin of the data. Analogous examples of this type of garbling are legends, folktales and the "Artistic License" of the author or originator.

Figure 2 illustrates this point by showing two instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and three instances of Data in the D column. One instance of an information state is not represented by or does not map back to a real world state and a Real World state in incorrectly interpreted as being represented by the superfluous datum.

Figure 2


GENESIS 1-11 IS REGARDED BY SOME LIBERAL CHRISTIANS AND JEWS AS BEING METAPHORICAL
The terms "Divinely Revealed" and "Divinely Inspired" have no consensus therefore they are meaningless terms with respect to the Bible. Additionally, the Bible contradicts established knowledge about such things as the principles and laws of physics of the Universe and Biology. If the Bible was divinely revealed then the fact that its metaphorical should have been divinely revealed. If it was divinely inspired, what does that mean? There is no consensus so it is meaningless. Christianity is meaningless because of its ambiguity, sliding windows and moving goalposts of criteria and definitions. I heartily endorse every Christian to take up their Bible and read it two or three times cover to cover and THINK HARD about what it says. Use your own brain to figure out what it means. Don't let anyone do your thinking for you.

Below are a few lines starting at the beginning of the Bible to ask some critical questions and do some thoughtful elaboration. Please follow along in your Bible.

GENESIS
1:1. So where did God come from? If a creation is evidence of a creator, and if everything that exists is created, then if god exists, he is evidence of his creator or he is "a special case" with no precedent and no extra-biblical evidence or God is a result of apologetic "special pleading" fallacies.
1:2. Is similar to pre-existing Egyptian creation myths
1:3. Where did the light come from without suns? Some speculative "Pre-light"?
1:4. Darkness is the absence of light. To say that light and dark "can be separated" is meaningless.
1:5. This depends on Gen 1:4 being true so its meaningless as well.
1:6. The ancients thought there was as much water in the sky as on the earth somehow being prevented from falling.
1:7. Depends on Gen. 1:6 being true so its meaningless
1:8. Also depends on Gen. 1:6 being true so its meaningless as well.
1:9. This is similar to the pre-existing egyption creation myth of Atum creating a hill out of the watery chaos to become the Egyptian city of Heliopolis so he could stand and then have his temple built on it. The Bible neglects to mention that there is more water than land and there are more than one land mass, which makes it meaningless to "gather the water into one place so that land can appear".
1:10. God named the land and the sea. But that presumes there was and always has been one original language, when it is known that this cannot be true due to the variety of fundamental differences and mutually exclusive features of the languages of the world. Communication between members of a species is not unique to Human Beings. And should there have been an original language that God spoke, then to guarantee its preservation to this day would have been a reasonable and efficient way of guaranteeing the integrity of the Data recorded in the Bible.

As one goes line by line through the Bible elaborating and assessing the information contained within, its mythological character should become undeniable to most people. If we take the Bible to be 100% true when we start reading it, then as we go through it and find statements that we know to be false and we find statements whose truth depends on false statements, then we should reduce our percentage of belief with every fact shown to be false.

Below is an overview of some major but not all inclusive problems with the remaining chapters of Genesis up to chapter eleven. Why is Genesis important? Because it lays the foundation for the human necessity of redemption by way of the Human Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

GENESIS 1 continued
* Genesis 1:1-25 Is An Amalgam of Near Eastern Creation Myths
* Genesis 1:26-1:27, Creation of Humans in Near Eastern Myths And The Paleolithic Era

GENESIS 2
ADAM AND EVE
The Story of Adam and Eve is considered a metaphorical story in Liberal Christian Circles. Several disconfirming facts are listed below with links to my articles elaborating on them.
- Being made in the image of God is meaningless, there is no consensus on what "the image of God" is.
* Disqualifying Adam and Eve. There is no reason outside of the Bible to accept this story as representing a Real World event.
* Adam and Eve and the Problem of Evil. Shows how the Christian Tenet that humans are "incompetent" nullifies any reliable interpretation of the Bible or any knowledge supposedly gained through flawed Human reasoning.
* GENESIS 1:28-2:4a, Be Fruitful And Multiply, Founder Effect and Genetic Diversity. Shows how lack of Genetic Diversity would prevent the establishment of a Robust and Healthy population.
* Genesis 2:4b-20: Man Made From Earth Is Folklore, Conflated River Elements and the Myth of Adapa. Discusses a correlation between Hebrew and all other Folklore typologies regarding the first humans.
* Genesis 2:21-25: Woman From Rib and Mother Goddesses of Near Eastern Myths. Discusses a correlation between Hebrew and all other Folklore typologies regarding Eve.

GENESIS 3: THE FALL OF MAN
- Killed an animal and made clothes for them, the eyed-needle first showed up about 45,000 years ago with the Cro-Magnons(7).
* Adams Sin Was An Emergent Behavior. Shows how the physical makeup of the first Humans guaranteed the emergence of the behavior they subsequently got punished for.
* Gen. 2-3, Normal-form Game Matrix Shows That God Chose The Worst Outcome. Shows that the omniscient God Character in the Bible chose the worst possible outcome for his creation guaranteeing all the problems that subsequently occurred.
* Gen. 2:16-3:24: Adam and Eve Were Mentally Incompetent. Shows how Adam and Eve did not have enough life experience to make good decisions.
* Gen. 2:7-3:6, God Should Have Known That Adam Would Disobey.
* Gen. 2:6-9, God Ignored Adams Admonishment Option. Shows that using effective principles of parenting, Adam and Eve's transgression warranted nurturing correction rather than expulsion and the handicap of being cursed by a God.

GEN 4 CAIN AND ABEL
- Founder effect. Due to lack of genetic variation, the effect of the small percentage of natural mutations are amplified in a population generally reducing the efficiency of the organism and increasing the probability of birth defects.
* GENESIS 1:28-2:4a, Be Fruitful And Multiply, Founder Effect and Genetic Diversity
- Where did the other people come from, where they all first and second generation relatives?
- 4:17 he built a city and called it Enoch. People first lived in caves then around 28,000 years ago starting building shelter structures out of Mammoth bone(7). How did they go from cavest to bone structures to cities in one generation?

THE MARK OF CAIN
- The Mark of Cain is meaningless. There is no clear consensus on what it was.
- It was thoughtlessly regard by some as Black Skin, justifying racism. However all Cains offspring would have been destroyed in the Flood if the Flood had really happened. Any critical analysis of the text would have revealed that inconsistency.

GEN 5 DESCENDENTS OF ADAM
- no one lived that long, the human body cannot support it. Accumulated DNA Damage guarantees that.
* Wikipedia, DNA Damage Theory of Aging

GEN 6 CORRUPTION OF MANKIND
- Nephilim? Very similar to the Greek Titans.
- Similar to Babylonian myths, Enuma Elish
* Wikipedia, Enuma Elish
- Mathematically and Logistically, the Ark doesn't add up.

GEN 7 THE GREAT FLOOD
- Similar to Babylonian myths, Enuma Elish
- Where did all the water come from and go?

“The book of Genesis says of the Flood that ‘… all the high hills that were under the whole of heaven were covered…’ Taken literally, this seems to indicate that there were 10,000 to 20,000 feet of water on the surface of the earth, equivalent to more than half a billion cubic miles of liquid! Since, according to biblical accounts, it rained for forty days and forty nights, or for only 960 hours, the rain must have fallen at a rate of at least fifteen feet per hour, certainly enough to sink any aircraft carrier, much less an ark with thousands of animals on board.” - John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy, (Collins Publishers, 1988), p. 13.

GEN 8 THE FLOOD SUBSIDES
- God evidently changed his mind and said that he would never do that again even though "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood". God cannot logically change his mind if he knows everything from the beginning. Once he knows the future, the future is set. If the future changes, then he didn't know it. If he knew of a finite number of outcomes, he should have know which one would happen, thereby making all other outcomes irrelevant.
- The earth would be a big marsh after that.

GEN 9 COVENANT OF THE RAINBOW
- Founder effect again.
- The rainbow is a refraction of light and can be reproduced in the lab. It would have been present before the flood unless the physics of the world was different prior. Since God set it up as a "note to self", God cannot be omniscient.
- Noah was mad at Ham so he cursed his son Canaan? All Ham did was tell his brothers that Noah was Naked. Any other interpretation is pure speculation.

GEN 10 DESCENDENTS OF NOAH
- Founder effect again.

GEN 11 TOWER OF BABEL
- How does an ancient Zuggarat no more than 170 meters tall threaten a god and space travel doesn't?
- There was never a single language. The exact definition of Language differs from one theory to another, but it is evident that other species have forms of communication, therefore, it is likely that communication and language develop within a culture, therefore independent of each other.
Wikipedia, Origin of Language
- DNA Damage guarantee humans can't live much more than 120 years.
- God didn't know everything because he was evidently surprised by how capable humans were to build the Zuggarat.

MEANINGLESS ITEMS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
If the Bible was Divinely inspired or Divinely revealed, then its truths should be timeless, not just applicable to the the time frame they were written. Apologists will tell you that the authors were speaking to people of their time, but that excludes any influence that an omniscient being would have had. In fact, plenty of "truths" originating from the ancients have survived relatively uninterpreted and sound to this day, specifically mathematics. Likewise, an omniscient being could be expected to do just as well as its human creations in creating and preserving ideas.

The New Testament is full of meaningless things. Here are a few examples.

DO CHRISTIANS NEED TO LIVE UNDER OLD TESTAMENT LAW OR NOT?
It seems clear that Jesus intended Christians to keep the old testament laws without apologetic equivocation.

17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK, ON ITS FACE, IS BAD ADVICE
It enables bad behavior to continue. The middle ground is the more appropriate where harm is minimized and less harmful behavior is nurtured. As it is written, it is meaningless without some further interpretation and speculation on the intention behind the speaker, namely God as Jesus. And who is qualified to interpret the intentions of God?

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'
39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
41 "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

Are Christians saved by Faith, Works or Both?
Depends on who you talk to. There is no consensus therefore it is meaningless.

JESUS COMMITS A FALLACY
"Whoever is not with me is against me" and "whoever is not against us is for us". Logically this is mutually exclusive and it is a fallacious reasoning scheme. If you have three groups of people, committed, rebellious, and ambivalent, then Luke 12:30 would exclude 66% percent while Mark 9:40 would only exclude 33%. Luke would exclude the Middle while Mark would include them. What happens to those that don't care one way or the other? Who knows? Therefore its meaningless and logically inconsistent coming from the mouth of God.

Luke 12:30 "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters."
Mark 9:40 "For he who is not against us is for us."

Is it possible that God revealed his word to Joseph Smith?
Again, it depends on who you talk to. There is no logical reason that it could not have happened, especially if it presumed that Gods interaction in peoples lives is ongoing to this day.

PRAYER IS MEANINGLESS
My article on "The Promise of Prayer"
Why does one pray? God should already know what is desired. People should not be able to influence God if he has a plan and already knows everything in advance. Does he need or want praise? How does a perfect being need or want anything?

I invite the reader to continue to apply what they already know to elaborating and evaluating the data in the Bible.

References and Further Reading
1. Anchoring Data Quality Dimensions in Ontological Foundations
2. GENESIS 1:28-2:4a, Be Fruitful And Multiply, Founder Effect and Genetic Diversity
3. Wikipedia, DNA Damage Theory of Aging
4. Wikipedia, Enuma Elish
5. John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy, (Collins Publishers, 1988), p. 13.
6. Wikipedia, Origin of Language
7. Human Prehistory and The First Civilizations, Brian M. Fagan, The Teaching Company

My Criticisms of Genesis One through Three consolidated.
Highlights the characteristics and typologies of Near Eastern folklore in the Bible and points out where it deviates from what we know about history and nature.
1. Genesis 1:1-25 Is An Amalgam of Near Eastern Creation Myths
2. Genesis 1:26-1:27, Creation of Humans in Near Eastern Myths And The Paleolithic Era
3. GENESIS 1:28-2:4a, Be Fruitful And Multiply, Founder Effect and Genetic Diversity
4. Genesis 2:4b-20: Man Made From Earth Is Folklore, Conflated River Elements and the Myth of Adapa
5. Genesis 2:21-25: Woman From Rib and Mother Goddesses of Near Eastern Myths

Criticisms of the Story of Adam and Eve (AKA Adam Bombing).
1. Adam and Eve and the Problem of Evil
2. Disqualifying Adam and Eve
3. Gen. 2:16-3:24: Adam and Eve Were Mentally Incompetent
4. Gen. 2:7-3:6, God Should Have Known That Adam Would Disobey.
5. Gen. 2:6-9, God Ignored Adams Admonishment Option
6. Adams Sin Was An Emergent Behavior
7. Gen. 2-3, Normal-form Game Matrix Shows That God Chose The Worst Outcome

Skeptical Study Corner

The deeper I get into my study of the Christian religion, the more information I discover is left to be unearthed, and the more I find out that I lack even a fistful of sand out of a vast mountain of knowledge within many areas outside my current strengths. Thus ...

... I am going to open up a personal blog dealing with subjects that are of an elementary nature, or that have more relevancy with understanding or discussing a theologicol (or an atheological!) argument, with the ultimate aim of reaching a higher personal standard of scholarship in my weaker areas when I blog here at DC and present my arguments elsewhere. Such topics may include the nature of God, the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate from theological perspectives, assessing methodology of history, learning theories about Biblical manuscripts and Early Church beliefs, and so on.

I will continue to post arguments stemming from my own strengths and research in this past year here at DC; the "learning portion" of my relatively newer interests will be posted at my new blog. Wherever we meet, I am looking forward to discussing and debating all aspects of this universally important topic.

-Darrin

http://skepticalstudies.blogspot.com/

I Try My Very Best to Focus on What's Important and to Be Fair and Balanced With the Arguments.

If there is one thing about me you should know it's this: my aim is to be fair and balanced with my intellectual opponents. Now I know such an aim is probably impossible, but I aim at this anyway. If someone can show where I mischaracterized his or her arguments I'm the first person who wants to know.

What grates on me to no end is people who don't give a damn to do likewise with my arguments. These people, on both sides of the fence, get little more than my distain. I have been known to berate them, ridicule and taunt them. I probably shouldn't do this, but sometimes I cannot resist. That's just who I am. That's what I sometimes do with people who are intellectually dishonest with what I say.

I am first and foremost a freethinker. That's who I am. I left the cookie-cutter mentality of defending the party line when I left the church. Whether you are a skeptic or a Christian if your arguments are lame I will probably point them out. Why? Because I am interested in the truth. If you don't like this then I cannot help you. If I am wrong show me. Unlike many people who debate these issues I am willing to listen. I really am. But you must be respectful; you must not purposely (or ignorantly) mischaracterize my arguments; you must try to be objective with the evidence; and you must show yourself to be willing to think through the issues rather than quoting from proof-texts.

Recently I have been defending the belief that there was an apocalyptic doomsday prophet in the first century named Jesus who was the basis for the Christian cult itself. I could be wrong. If I'm wrong show me. I'm interested in every issue but I can only focus on the important ones. Some of the vitriol coming from the skeptical crowd reminds me of how Christians have divided into separate denominations over and over about mere trifles. I guess we're all just humans after all. We want everyone to agree with us. If someone is out of line we want him to get in line. If that person doesn't do this we tend to write him off as being ignorant, because we tend to think it's because of ignorance he disagrees. This saddens me to no end. I have no solutions to this type of fundamentalist thinking, but it is fundamentalist thinking! It's probably just part of the human condition. We want people to think exactly like us, even on unimportant trifles. And if they don't we write them off, even if we agree with them 90% of the time. Is that stupid or what? There I go myself. *slap* Why can't we at least be smart enough to choose our battles wisely and focus on the majors rather than on the minors? Knowing the difference between them is a mark of an educated person, although not even that seems to be enough.

C.S. Lewis's Theory of Atonement in The Chronicles of Narnia

I'll confess I haven't read Lewis's book, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, but in the cartoon version as well as in the blockbuster movie they agree with each other. Upon researching further I found that the theory expressed is the Ransom Theory of Atonement which has been recently defended by Charles Taliaferro. It's known as the "classical view" in that it was the one adopted by theologians up until St. Anselm. To see it explained and criticized read through this (just skip the ad).

Criticisms of this theory:

The Ransom theory, as well as other violence-based atonement explanations, suffer from an inconsistency in Christian teaching: The church has traditionally taught that a person is responsible for their own sin, and that a person cannot morally be punished for the sins of others. Of course, they deviated from this teaching, as when they taught as late as the mid-20th century that modern-day Jews were responsible for the execution of Yeshua (a.k.a. Jesus Christ). But in general, people were not held responsible for the sins of others.

The church has also historically taught that the default destination for all humans currently living, after death, will be Hell because of the Adam and Eve's transgression in the Garden of Eden when they ate the forbidden fruit. All will be tortured in Hell, unless they are saved through sacraments and/or good works and/or faith. The sin of Eve and Adam were imputed to the entire human race. More liberal Christian faith groups have deviated from this belief and teach universalism -- that nobody will spend eternity in Hell.

Most liberal and many mainline Christians believe that Adam and Eve were mythical humans. That is, they didn't exist as actual people. Without that belief, this atonement theory collapses.

Some Christians note that Eve and Adam were created as proto-humans without a sense of sin. After all, they ate the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to develop a knowledge of good and evil. Being without a moral sense, they cannot be responsible for eating the fruit any more than an animal might. Again, if the first parents are not responsible for eating the fruit, the atonement theory collapses.

Phil Johnson, Executive Director of Grace to You states that there is no support in the Bible for the concept that Satan has a legitimate claim on sinners. He suggests that the "Biblical word ransom simply means 'redemption-price;' it does not necessarily imply a price paid to Satan."

Several passages in the Bible imply that Christ's death was a ritual sacrifice to God, and thereby not to Satan: Isaiah 53:10: "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."

Ephesians 5:2: "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour." The reference to a sweet smelling savor is seen throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in reference to animal sacrifices in the Temple being cooked at the altar, with the fragrance wafting upwards towards Heaven where God was seated on his throne. The ancient Hebrews believed that Heaven was only a few hundred feet above the earth.

Origen's version requires that God acts in a deceitful manner. That is does not match the traditional Christian belief about the justice, honesty, and truthfulness of God.

Many versions of the ransom theory assume that Satan is unaware of the magical powers of Yeshua. The later version assumes that Satan is deluded into thinking that he is more powerful than Yeshua. Yet Satan is portrayed in the Bible as a dedicated, intelligent, and evil angel, not a quasi-deity who is so disconnected from reality that he is unaware of Yeshua's capabilities. Satan is not described in the Bible as suffering from delusions of grandeur.

The entire concept of Satan as a living entity is rejected by many Christians today; they view Satan as a symbol of evil, not as an actual person. If Satan is not an all-evil quasi-deity, Origen's theory collapses.

The Bible identifies Satan as a created being; a fallen angel who disobeyed God. Similarly, humans are commonly portrayed as created beings who have disobeyed God and fallen. There is no obvious rationale for assuming that Satan had control over all of humanity any more than the reverse might have been true.

Since God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibeneficient, just, and ethical, it is illogical to assume that he would be willing to allow his son to be tortured to death if there were another way to achieve atonement. God might have, for example, simply forgiven Adam and Eve for their sin. According to the gospels, Yeshua repeatedly taught that extending forgiveness is to take the moral high road.

Professor of Philosophy Michael Martin writes:

"Since, on the ransom theory, after Jesus' death and resurrection, human beings were out of the devil's clutches, it would seem that the way to salvation would simply be to follow a life free from sin so as not to fall under the devil's control. What has faith in Jesus got to do with this? The ransom theory supplies no answer."

There are three additional criticisms of the Ransom Theory which also apply to other atonement theories. They attribute to God the same sort of cruel, hate-filled, punishing behavior seen in the lives of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc:

There is no obvious mechanism whereby a person can achieve salvation and atonement with God by simply expressing faith and/or trust in Yeshua.

If trusting Yeshua were the only path to atonement and salvation, then those who have followed a non-Christian religion would not achieve salvation and atonement. They would be sent to Hell after death for what is basically the commission of a thought crime -- believing in the wrong God or in no God. Current moral belief systems -- both religious and secular -- consider punishment for thought crimes to be immoral and unjust.

The ransom theory would also route many non-Christians to Hell after death for the simple reason that they have not had the opportunity to learn of Yeshua, Christianity, or the gospel message. Being ignorant of Yeshua, they could not trust him as Lord and Savior and be saved. The Ransom Theory punishes non-Christians for not having made a decision in favor of someone of whom they are unaware. This appears to many people to be irrational, unjust, and immoral.

Movie Review: Religulous

This review is late, way late! The release of Religulous was on October 1, 2008 and only now am I getting to review it. Why is that? Because down in the south where I live, even we movie critics couldn’t get it because we’re in the Bible Belt and most theatres wouldn’t carry it. We have the always tolerant, loving, and nonjudgmental Jesus-courters to thank for that. What I had to do to finally get a demo copy of the film was quite disgusting. It involved me in the back seat of a 1996 Buick Skylark getting down and dirty for 35 minutes with a tranny hooker named Philecia.

Okay, now that I made you chuckle, I’m about to turn the floor over to a real comedian, Bill Maher, creator of the hilariously offensive documentary. Being an avid and outspoken atheist myself, it would be biased of me to put a grade on Religulous unlike the rest of my reviews at holmansmoviereview.com. To say that I agree with Maher’s conclusions should be obvious. So, I’m sitting this one out and letting Bill Maher do the promoting of godless activism for right now.

Maher’s travels for the project took him to Israel in Megiddo, the Mt. of Olives, to Italy to the Vatican where he was thrown out, to the Netherlands to visit a weeded-out “God” junkie, and to some other places in the United States (including the Mormon Temple in Utah where he was bounced from the property) to get feedback on those coats of many colors called God and religion.

What’s the problem with the world? The problem is religion and timing: “Before man figured out how to be rational and peaceful, he figured out nuclear weapons and how to pollute on a catastrophic scale,” says Maher. It is the intolerance generated by religious convictions that gives man the false assurance that he is right and cannot be wrong.

Maher makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and sometimes you even want to sympathize with them. Take, for instance, a chapel for truckers in North Carolina where Maher stops in to ask some questions. Within minutes of filming, one of them says: “You start disputin’ my god, then you got a problem.” But the problem with people like that is not disputing God. There’s no critical thinking going on. “I’m promoting doubt.” Maher says. “The other guys are selling certainty, not me.” How should we think? We should learn from our mistakes and realize that nobody has all the answers: “History is just a litany of getting shit wrong.” And “Religion is dangerous because it allows people who don’t have all the answers to think that they do.”

Dr. Francis Collins, one of the world’s leading DNA experts, is questioned on his adhering to Christian convictions while 93% of all scientists in the National Academy of Sciences are either atheist or agnostic. I would like to have seen more of the interview with Dr. Collins, which I felt was a bit too heavily edited.

Other interviews were gut-busting-ly funny, sometimes to the point of being awkward, like Maher’s interview with “ex-gay” pastor John Wescott. Just watch, and if you don’t cringe, I’ll give you a dollar! Democratic senator Mark Pryor is on tape admitting that the earth might be 5,000 years old. The creationist movement’s Ken Ham is interviewed just after a shot of a triceratops with a saddle on it.

After getting booted from the Vatican, Maher’s interview with a crotchety old priest is a gem. Being questioned about the church’s condemnation of sinners to Hell, the priest says: “That’s all nonsense. That’s the old Catholic church.” Well, that’s good to hear!

Brilliantly incorporated archived footage of political coverage, televangelists, and world events gives the presentation an extra-outrageous appeal. One of those is of Kirk Cameron and his usual spewing forth of ignorance, this time on making converts. The believer must “learn to circumvent or go around the person’s intellect.” Yep, that’s what the religious must do to convert anyone. If you think about it, it all falls apart. Don’t think! Just believe!

Religious idiocy is cleverly exploited as Rabbi Schmuel Strauss is interviewed. The man works for The Institute of Science and Halacha, inventing products that allow for modern conveniences without breaking the Sabbath. A phone is showcased that can dial itself. If you put a stylus in a number of the number you want to dial, the phone will stop inhibiting dialing at the number, which it tries to do automatically every second, so as to not violate one of the 39 prohibitions set by modern Jewish leadership against pushing buttons, and therefore, allowing the use of a phone on the Sabbath. Things get more comical with a wheelchair propelled by air thrust to avoid anyone having to push it on the Sabbath.

Maher interviews Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda, a man with 100,000 followers worldwide who believes himself to be the second incarnation of Christ. A radical Muslim Aki Nawaz is interviewed, a man who raps about and openly believes in suicide bombings, and upholds the death threats made against Salmon Rushdie.

On faith, Maher says “Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking.” And “Those who preach faith and enable it and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders.” It is religion that destroys mankind. “Religion must die for mankind to live.”

The conclusion is that religion is crazy – crazy funny – but mostly just crazy. Religious people are crazy. Their religion makes them that way. Religulous is about getting the world humble enough to admit that anyone can be wrong—adored religious saints and their holy books alike. If the things religious people believe were found in any other book, they’d be denied and called fairy tales. But since those things are in the Bible, they’re given a pass on conforming to rationality. None of their proponents know what they are talking about and have no more certainty in answering life’s big questions as their fellow religious loudmouths or your local “I’ll believe it when I see it” village atheist.

Religulous is 100 minutes and 56 seconds of realism with comic relief where Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others all get roasted. Spliced in with the interviews are charts, facts, and movie clips that will probably have you rolling laughing. The open-minded and non-fundamentalist religionists are encouraged to see the film as it will provide great entertainment. If you are a closed-minded, straight-laced fundamentalist, run. But if you do decide to see it, be prepared to throw a shoe at the screen.

(JH)

Ancient Mythic Origins of the Christmas Story

Valerie Tarico interviews Dr. Tony Nugent, scholar of world religions. Dr. Nugent is a symbologist, an expert in ancient symbols. He taught at Seattle University for fifteen years in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies and is an ordained Presbyterian minister.

Most Americans know how Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25: The Emperor Constantine chose the date because it was winter solstice in the Julian Calendar, the birthday of dying and rising gods like Mithra and Sol. Some people also know that our delightful melange of Christmas festivities originated in ancient Norse, Sumerian, Roman and Druid traditions - or, in the case of Rudolph, on Madison Avenue.

But where does the Christmas story itself come from: Jesus in the manger, the angels and wise men?



The familiar Christmas story, including the virgin conception and birth of Jesus, is found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Scholars have pointed out that these stories are somewhat disconnected from other parts of these Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. In fact, by the time he is a young boy in the temple, Jesus's parents seem to have forgotten the virgin birth. They act surprised by his odd behavior. There is never any other mention in the New Testament of these incredible events! These stories seem to be an afterthought, written later than the rest of the gospels that contain them.

To make matters more interesting, the stories themselves have inconsistencies and ambiguities - contradictory genealogies, for example. Our Christmas story (singular) is actually a composite. Or consider the idea that Mary is a virgin. The Greek writer of Matthew quotes Isaiah as saying: "a parthenos shall conceive and bear a child." The Hebrew word in Isaiah is "almah," which means simply "young woman." But the Greek word parthenos can mean either a virgin or a young woman, and it got translated as "virgin." Modern Bible translations have corrected this, but it is a central part of the Christmas story.

That's a lot of added complications. If the rest of the New Testament doesn't refer to these stories or need them, then how did we end up with them? Where do they come from?

One part of the answer comes from Hellenistic culture. (It is no accident all New Testament books written in Greek.) In this tradition, when a man did something extraordinary there was the assumption that he did this because he was different, either divine or semi-divine. They would make up a story about how he came to be divine. Almost all Greek heroes were said to be born of a human woman and a god--even Alexander the Great, Augustus and Pythagoras. The father typically was Zeus or Apollo. The god would come and sleep with the woman, pretending to be the husband or as a bolt of lightning, or some such. Greek mythology also shows up in the book of Genesis: the gods lusting after the women and coming down and mating with them.

Why were they added to the Christian story?

Jewish Christians - the first Christians didn't believe in the virgin birth. They believed that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Part of their Christology was "adoptionism"--they thought Jesus was adopted as the unique son of God at some time later in life. There were disagreements about when - Mark suggests the baptism, Paul suggests the resurrection.
Over time, gentile Christianity replaced Jewish Christianity. There were Jewish-Roman Wars. The Jewish Christians were marginalized and oppressed. The Gentile branch became dominant. Eventually we get the gospel of John which pushes the sonship of Jesus back to the beginning of time. This writer is at the other end of the spectrum from the Jewish Christians. But Matthew and Luke think that the Sonship of Jesus began at birth. And they want to tell a story that reinforces this point. Matthew and Luke are the source of the Christmas story as most of us learned it.

Why didn't the writers do a better job of cleaning the contradictions?

They did, some. This is called the "orthodox corruption of scripture." (Bart Ehrman article , book) . But it appears that these birth stories were added toward the end, so scripture got frozen before they could get integrated.

I was raised that the bible was the literally perfect, "inerrant" word of God, essentially dictated by God to the writers. What you are saying about the Christmas story sure calls into question this point of view.

Which Bible?! There are thousands of manuscript variations. Most biblical stories are probably fiction, not non-fiction. They are mythology in the deepest sense of the word. But we need to get beyond issue of whether biblical reports happened in the historical, physical sense to understand what they mean spiritually and mythically.

Ok. Back to Christmas. Of all the images from the Christmas story, the one that people fall in love with most is angels. The Christmas story is full of angels, beings of light. Is this because of the solstice tradition?

Actually it comes from the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish scriptures that were eventually adopted into the Christian Bible as the Old Testament. It also comes from the Jewish literature written between the Old and New Testaments that didn't get into the biblical canon. Some of these are even quoted in the New Testament, for example Enoch, from the 2nd Century BC. It's all about angels.

What are angels in these stories? Who are they?

The Bible calls them the sons of God, the Divine Council. The word used for God in parts of the Hebrew Bible, Elohim, is plural implying a family of deities. Angels are the lesser gods of the deposed pantheon of ancient Israel. They are under the rulership of Yahweh. Together with Yahweh they are part of Elohim, a plural word that we translate "God" in the book of Genesis. Elohim/God says "Let us make humans in our image." Christians understand this to refer to the trinity, but that is a later interpretation. These angels came from the ancient pantheons of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Many of these gods come from stars. There is a strong astral dimension. "Heavenly Hosts" are stars.

The Luke story focuses on one angel specifically: Gabriel. Is he the archangel? Gabriel is the Angel of the Lord. He is one of two angels who are named in the Jewish canon and the Christian canon outside of the apocrypha: Gabriel and Michael. They are the angels of mercy and judgment. Gabriel means "Strong One of El." He is first named in Daniel.

If you go into an Eastern Orthodox church you have two icons on the north and south. Michael is on the North to fight with Satan who lives there. Gabriel is on the south. He is more like what the angels originally were, which is messengers of the gods. That is what angel means. The idea that God has a special messenger is exactly what we read about in the Middle Eastern mythologies. Each of the earlier gods has his own special messenger. Enki, who becomes Yaweh, has Isimud. The goddess Inana has Ninshubur. Each high god will have an envoy or assistant, who is a lesser god. The angel of the lord is the same thing. The distinction between angels and gods came later.

Is he a star person? Or one of those semi-divine descendents of gods and women?

He is one of the gods who would come down to earth.

Why do you say that?

The offspring of the gods mating with women are called Gaborim--from the same root as Gabriel. In the second century, Gabriel appears in the Epistula Apostolorum. It talks about Jesus and these secret teachings that he gave to his apostles after the resurrection. One of the secrets is that he is actually Gabriel. After Gabriel took on flesh and united with Mary, then he becomes Jesus. The idea that Christ was an angel was extremely popular in the early church. Later we find this really strict separation between humans and angels; between gods and angels. (more)

We have time for just one more favorite Christmas story: The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi.

The Magi are astrologers. They are Zoroastrian priests. Just to the east of the Roman Empire was the Persian Empire, which was Zoroastrian. They see this star at its rising (the better translations don't say in the East). The astrologers paid a lot of attention to this. It is likely that what this refers to was a heliacal rising, which is the first time that a star appears over the horizon during the course of a year. They thought this was a sign of the Jewish messiah. Scholars speculate that they would have been living in Babylon, where there were lots of Jewish merchants. The Jews had been there from the time of the Jewish exile from Babylonia. We have cuneiform records from them.

Are you assuming that this story is historical?

Think of it as a frog and pond. The pond is real, the frog is not. They are fictional stories in a real setting. They don't always get the details of the setting right, but they are fictional characters in real places. The Magi follow their star from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. The author has in mind a real star that would be in front of you in this situation. There are two candidates, Canopus or Alpha Centauri. Those two stars are visible for approx 6 mo of year, Canopus from about the fall equinox to spring equinox and Alpha Centauri from about November to May.

Remember what I said about the Heavenly Host being stars? The star in Matthew and the angel in Luke are two variants of the same mythology.

My former fundamentalist head is spinning. Is there anything else you'd like to say in closing?

We need to be able to appreciate these stories as myths, rather than literal histories. When you understand where they come from, then you can understand their spiritual significance for the writers and for us.

That sounds like another interview. Thank you.

Valerie Tarico is the author of The Dark Side: How Evangelial Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth (available in the Debunking Christianity bookstore) and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org.

Christianity is Wildly Improbable To Me

Evangelical Christian beliefs seem so wildly improbable to me that the best description of them is that they are bizzaro. Christians must defend too many beliefs, any one of which, if incorrect, would be fatal to their whole worldview. These beliefs are based upon the conclusions of historical evidence which is extremely problematic given the nature of that evidence. Then they have the additional problem of showing why these historical conclusions are supported by science (as in creation research) and can be made sense of by philosophy. But the historical evidence alone defeats their set of beliefs! I claim Christians do not believe the Bible! They gerrymander and cherry-pick from it over and over.

Christians will respond, like one scholarly friend of mine did, that it’s “far from obvious” he should look at his beliefs as an outsider. But then what does he tell Mormon scholars who might say the same thing as Alvin Plantinga does, that they don’t have to investigate their faith or Scriptures with methodological naturalism (it is, after all, only a method unlike ontological naturalism)? What if they maintained they are within their epistemic rights to base their science (and archaeology) on their own worldview? Why the double standard here? And why is it that methodological naturalism has made this modern world possible, achieving astounding results from the computer chip to the internet to modern medicine to forensics to meteorology to plate tectonics to nuclear technology, and so on and so forth, but that when it comes to investigating an ancient collection of superstitious writings with obvious pseudonymous interpolations that we shouldn’t apply that extremely fruitful method to those writings?

My friend asked if God is to be blamed for creating this world and for wanting people who freely love him. Yes, most definitely yes, until or unless he can tell me why a supposedly reasonable triune completely self-fulfilled God wanted this in the first place (“grace” is not an answer at all); why libertarian free-will is such an important value to God when compared to the sufferings that have resulted from this so-called gift; whether human beings actually have free-will if God created us with our specific DNA and placed us within a specific environment (an environment that actually obstructs many people from receiving the gospel because of the “accidents of birth”); why God suspends some people’s free choices (i.e. Pharaoh) but not others; why God even cares to have free-willed people who love him, knowing full well the consequences for the billions of people who wind up in hell (the collateral damage), and why God will allow sinners in hell to retain their freedom but take it away from the saints in heaven (and who subsequently completes the sanctification process for these saints without their own free choices doing it).

When it comes to Jesus, my friend directed me to Boyd/Eddy’s excellent book, The Jesus Legend. That first chapter makes some unique arguments. The authors argue when it comes to the historical past that to be truly critical we should be open to everything—that "everything is fair game"--since anything might be possible. In making this argument they claim we should be open to the possibility of the miracles in the Bible. But I find that position to be impossible and extremely gullible. No, of course not, everything cannot be fair game, otherwise historians would fall prey to every claim of a statue of the Virgin Mary that wept, and every medieval claim that witches flew through the night to have orgies with Satan (should we really be open to these claims?). No, historians must look at the past from the perspective of the present--the one they know. In fact, they cannot do otherwise, Boyd and Eddy included. Boyd and Eddy read the Bible through modern eyes too. That’s why I claim Christians in today's world don’t believe the Bible. They don’t, not by a long shot. They have merely reinterpreted it over and over again in light of the advancement of scientific, philosophical, economical, political, and social understandings.

When will Christians see this for what it is? When will they actually think about what they're saying? When will they actually answer my arguments? Nothing, and I mean nothing, has come close to truly engaging them. They have faith, therefore I must be wrong. Really? *shrugs his shoulders*

A Link to My Amazon Reviews

I've written several book reviews on Amazon, seen here. Enjoy.

The United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament; the Book of Mormon and BYU’s Prof. Stephen E. Robinson

In the religious academic world, college and university degrees (especially on the advance master and doctoral levels) are usually given to show that the candidate has achieved some level of scholarship and objectivity. One such individual is Stephen E. Robinson, a Mormon scholar and apologist and head of the department of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University.

Robinson earned his PhD under James H. Charlesworth at Duke University (now of Princeton), and worked with Charlesworth on the Syriac text and translation of the Odes of Solomon. Thus, Professor Robinson was the scholar I thought could answer a textual question on the Book of Mormon (see below).

Some Back Ground Information:

For twenty years (1981 - 2001) I attended the Greenville First Ward LDS Church as a non-member while I studied the social and religious organizational structure of the Mormons and what happened to newly proselytized converts as they were taught this new “religious truth” .

Towards the end of my two decades with the First Ward, I had a acquired a leather bound “Scripture” (a term LDS members collectively call the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants) heavily highlighted and notarized. Plus, I have lost tract of the number of times I had met with Mormon Elders / Missionaries in discussions and in friendly debates.

What most non-Mormons fail to understand when discussing theology with LDS members is that their doctrinal authority is built on an ascending level of authority. Here is the level they accept from the lest authoritative to the most:

The Old Testament is on the bottom and is subject to the New Testament which is subject to the Book of Mormon which is subject to the Pearl of Great Price which is subject to the Doctrines and Covenants which is subject to the General Authorities of the Church who themselves are subject to the living Prophet / President of the Church. This is one reason why a Protestant or non-believer who tries to debate Mormon elders using the Bible only method will find themselves up against a wall. In other words, what we have here is a process of religious dogmatic evolution from the lowest doctrinal forms (the Old Testament) to the highest level; the living Prophet of the LDS Church.

Secondly, I learned from a former professor of religion at Brigham Young University that Mormons are simply not interested in the historical Joseph Smith, but only the Joseph Smith as understood and presented by the writings of their Church. In other words, the LSD Church controls the image of a mythical Joseph Smith over a historical Joseph Smith to support their faith. This is one reason why LDS Mormons are warned about reading historical books on the Prophet Joseph Smith or as one LDS Apostle once stated about non-Mormons: “They lie in wait to deceive!” To counter this attack, Mormons are read only publications printed LDS approved publishers.

Moreover, since Jesus Christ has now restored the true Church under Joseph Smith, all other churches are viewed as false and even considered under the direct leadership of Satan himself.

Fact is, since there are still five remaining Book of Mormon churches left (out of the 15 sects that were struggling for the right to be the true and original restored “Church” at the death of Joseph Smith), the LDS Mormons (the name of the largest 15 million plus group Utah sect) tried unsuccessfully to get exclusive use of the term “Mormon” as a registered Trade Mark in the U.S. Patten office to keep its use away from other Book of Mormon sects . So, even if one believes that Joseph Smith is a true prophet who restored "The True Church", and one believes the Book of Mormon was translated from the Golden Plates, these individual Book of Mormon sects will attack and evangelized one another as fast as they will proselytize people who do not believe in the Book of Mormon.

In the Mormon Church, all men and most women (usually between high school and college age) are expected to complete a two year mission in either a distant state or country of which fifty percent is financed by the family of the mission elder and the other half is paid for by the LDS Church. For those youths who have never gone on a mission (especially the men), they are continually made to feel like a Protestant Christian who believes in Christ, but like a believer who had never been baptized.

Since I had done two lectures and slide presentations on the early life and times of Joseph Smith (Translating and Revealing the Word of God: Joseph Smith and the Formation of the Mormon Church and a detailed lecture on the five belief systems of the remaining “Book of Mormon Churches”) I could spent a dozen posts and still not relate all the details even most LDS Mormons themselves don’t know.

Mormons strongly believe that not only did Joseph Smith restored the "True Church of Jesus Christ", but since the Bible was not “translated correctly” it was corrupted by the false Christian churches. In this light, the Book of Mormon is the considered the most accurate translation of any book.

Thus, the topic of my post:

Fact: In the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ comes to America to teach the Lost Tribes of Israel (3 Nephi). In 3 Nephi 13: 9 -13 Jesus is in America and teaching the Nephites the same Lord’s Prayer. One reading this account will notice that this version of the Lord’s Prayer is the same prayer as in Matthew 6: 9-13 of the King James Bible.

Problem: If, as Joseph Smith claimed, the Book of Mormon is the uncorrupted and pure text / translation “translated” from the Golden Plates, then we should have a textual witness independent of the textual problems and corruptions of the standard Greek texts that make up the Textus Receptus (the bases for the 1611 King James Bible / New Testament) a received Greek text which has as been labeled by Bruce Metzger has one with “blatant errors” (A Textual Commentary; p.10).

In the United Bibles Society’s Greek New Testament (as well as the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament), the earliest witnesses confirm this prayer ends with the phase “but deliver us from evil.” and that the King James inclusion of the longer ending “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen” is a redaction composed from I Chronicles 29: 11 - 13 “in order to adapt the Prayer for liturgical use in the early church.” (A Textual Commentary; p. 14). The certain criteria that the original text ended with “evil” was given an “A” rating by the U.B.S.G.N.T. 4ed. Textual Committee.

When I point this out to the mission elders of the LDS Church, neither they nor their state mission president had an answer to the problem. However, they assured me that the Book of Mormon was not wrong, nor was it at this point simply Smith copying the Lord’s Prayer from the King James Bible.

The Elders told me that the scholars at the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at Brigham Young University were the textual scholars who could answer my question.

Since this was a New Testament Greek textual question / problem, I decided to contact Professor Stephen Edward Robinson, PhD a Mormon scholar and apologist who is head of the department of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University. And since both Robinson and I were members of the Society of Biblical Literature, I could use the Society’s Member Handbook to get his office phone number.

I called Robinson’s faculty number at BYU only to get a recording at which time I left my name, pone number and that I had a Book of Mormon question requesting him to kindly return my phone call. After a week and two unanswered requests for Professor Robinson to return my calls, I told the Elders that I was not having any luck with the Dept. of Ancient Scripture a BYU.

One of the Elders told me that he could get the home phone number of Dr. Robinson (an unlisted number), but he wanted me to assure him he would remain anonymous (which I agreed to).

That night about 7:00 pm Utah time, I called Prof. Robinson’s home and got his wife. I told her that I had a textual question on the Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi and would like to ask Dr. Robinson about it. Mrs. Robinson said he was not in at the time, but “may come in latter“. About and hour later I called again and got their five year old daughter (as listed in the faculty description). She told me she was alone and that both mommy and daddy were not there. As she paused for some time to give me more information, I could tell she was being coached as to what to say. I told her I hoped her mom and dad would return soon as she was too young to stay at home alone. In about forty-five minutes I called back and got Mrs. Robinson on the phone again. When I asked her if Prof. Robinson was there, she angrily stated he was not home and that “he is never coming home as for as you are concerned!” and hung up.

While I’m sure most all LDS Mormons strongly believe the Book of Mormon is true and correct just as Joseph Smith claimed it to be (a true and perfect translation of what both the Lost Tribes of Israel and Jesus Christ said and did), the facts speak for themselves when a Temple Mormon family must lie to run from the truth (as the Robinsons did), the world and claims created by the Prophet and Founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Satins can clearly be seen as a concocted “Made in America Religion” invented to give people in the early nineteenth century Burned Over District in up state New York a new direction in the confused world of the Bible and freedom of religion in the United States.

Richard Carrier v. William Lane Craig on the Resurrection

I Challenge Conservative Christians

You realize, don't you, that there are many more choices than just between Christianity (i.e. Evangelical Christianity) and Atheism (as I define it, the denial of all gods)?

We are poles apart, that's true, which makes it hard to discuss these issues with Christians. It's hard to make them see what we do, or to think like we think. People who are poles apart sometimes don't even use the same language. We dispute each other's facts. We have different control beliefs. We live in different intellectual universes.

The differences might be like a mountain climber who expects some person off the street to join him in climbing up Mt. Everest, or a skydiver who does tricks who expects a novice to do the same. Such things are far beyond someone not already used to doing likewise. It takes training and work and time, plenty off it. No one can expect someone to think of doing likewise, much less do it. That person might even be scared of heights! It takes baby steps. One must crawl before he can walk. And one must walk before he can run. And one must run before he can climb, and so on.

Evangelical Christians recoil from our arguments. They don't trust us. For most of them we represent the devil. A friend of mine read my book but before each time she said a prayer that God would not let her be deceived by what was in it, and you know what, she walked away still believing. Surprise! Maybe some Christian visitors do the same whenever coming here to DC, who knows. Some come to do battle against the forces of evil. They're not open to what we have to say at all. Why? Because of the distance between us and the trust factor. They "know" we're wrong from the get go.

There's nothing that can be done about this. It's just the way it is.

I just want to remind everyone that there is some sort of continuum of beliefs and the choices are not limited to just evangelical Christianity and Atheism (as defined). There are a whole range of intermediate religious views between us. This is nothing new, of course, but a reminder of this is good. Why? Because the range of Christianity begins way over to the right, with snake handlers and the KKK (yes, they claim to be Christians), to the Fred Phelps hate group, to King James version only Christians, to Bob Jones University, to non-instrumental Churches of Christ, to Pentecostals like Pat Robertson, to Evangelical minded (who often distance themselves from others to their right), to open theists, to liberal Christians of various sorts who can be described as existentialists, mainline Christians, Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong types, feminists, panentheists like Marcus Borg, Liberation Theology, and Universalists. There are Arminian, Calvinist and Catholic versions of these types of Christianities, I presume. Then there are Deists, agnostics, and Atheists. This is quite a long, varied continuum of beliefs. One could probably start out a snake handler and with more and more reading go through several of the stages of thinking over the years and became an atheist. Hardly ever does the trend reverse itself, although there are probably a few rare cases, I presume.

What happens when one thinks through a theology and moves to the left isn't usually because he read a book out of bounds of what's considered possible. I remember reading John Gibson's commentary on Genesis 1-11 and rejecting it outright because it was too far from what I would consider possible. I have now come to embrace his conclusions. The stories of Genesis 1-11 are parabolic stories, myths. As I moved from being a Pentecostal to an evangelical to a liberal to a panentheist to a deist then an agnostic and finally an atheist I would only consider those books that challenged me and they were just a bit to the left of where I was. Anything farther away than that would throw up all kinds of red flags in my head.

So, if Christians here don't want to take the Debunking Christianity Challenge because it's too far removed from what you consider a possibility due to the fact that you don't trust atheist authors, then do what I did. Read books that challenge your thinking by Christian authors outside your safe zone. Read open theist literature. Read liberal Christian books. If you're in college, study with professors who will challenge your faith.

I remember when considering which seminary to attend many people thought I should go to Cincinnati Bible Seminary rather than Lincoln Christian Seminary because the liberals were there. But I went anyway and didn't find any liberals there at all! Then I went to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and was told that such a college was outside the bounds of my own denomination, so to be careful, that some liberals were there who didn't think the way Church of Christ people did. But they were conservatives after all. Then I finally attended Marquette University and I finally met the liberals. But more and more I found the arguments to the left of where I was at much better.

So here's a challenge to conservative Christians. How do you know you're right about that which you were raised to believe? Challenge yourself to read outside your safe zone. See why these authors think the way that they do. You'll find they have some good arguments. See if your beliefs can withstand their arguments. There are a host of Zondervan and Inter-Varsity Press books that have four or five views of certain issues from the millennium to women to apologetics to hell to creation to atonement theories to sanctification to salvation to the Bible, and so on. Read them all, one at a time for starters. In my case my beliefs changed in the face of these other books and articles and professors. It was slow, and I faced a crisis. But the conservative Christian arguments are less than persuasive in the Christian literature.

My challenge is for Christians to begin reading the list of books Anthony provides in this post.

The reason I wrote my book is because I could not answer the arguments of the people to my left. I am an atheist because atheists have the best arguments down the line. Atheism is the position of last resort. Once all other views are eliminated it’s the one to fall back on. I would never have considered it unless I went through several theology changes by reading authors I could trust. Try it. Challenge your beliefs, not by our writings, if that’s too much to ask. Read authors outside your safe zone. If you’re a conservative then read the books of moderates. If you’re a moderate then read the books of the liberals. If you’re a liberal, then read atheist literature. See what happens. Keep stretching your mind. Do not simply read literature that you’re comfortable with. That’s not a challenge at all. Challenge yourself. See if your present views as a conservative can withstand this challenge. They didn’t with me. I suspect you’ll find it won’t with you. Test your beliefs. How do you know your theology is correct? The only way is to test it with other authors just a bit farther to your left. This is my challenge to you. It may be the best challenge I can lay down.

Secular Alliance of IU Made A Video Of Their Visit to the Creation Museum

Bloomington, IN, December 12, 2008 - Indiana University students made video account of a field trip to the creation museum located in Petersburg, Kentucky, near the Greater Cincinnati International Airport. I spoke for this group in September. Enjoy.


SAIU trip to the Creation Museum from Secular Alliance on Vimeo.

The Religious Condition

My new book, entitled The Religious Condition: Answering And Explaining Christian Reasoning, is available for purchase from Amazon by clicking here. Excerpts, notes, and other information can be viewed here. So what’s the book about, and should you purchase it?

The first half of the book is on how persuasive psychology has demonstrated that certain factors have a much greater impact on the formation and maintenance of beliefs than they should, especially when those beliefs are unfalsifiable religious ones. Topics in this section include dissonance, confirmation bias, indoctrination, emotion, rationalization, and freethought. Key texts cited include Robert Cialdini’s Influence, Richard Petty and John Cacioppo’s Attitudes and Persuasion, and Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things. The second half of the book is my answer to negative responses on my previous work, focusing primarily on arguments related to evolution, creationism, proofs, argumentation, and morality.

If you’re interested in how psychological studies demonstrate that the majority of human beings are way too gullible and unreasonable to form objective conclusions on important matters (such as religion), and you’ve never read about the formation and maintenance of beliefs in depth, I think you would gain a lot from it. On the other hand, there would be nothing new to a freethinking persuasive psychologist here (“freethinking” would be a bit redundant, since I’ve never found a religious one). The balance of the book probably doesn’t provide too much new material for those who have read Sagan, Mills, Dawkins, Harris, etc., but it could serve as an inclusive summary refutation for those who haven’t. This portion is more of a fun project in the tradition of Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation.

So purchase it if you want, but I would also highly recommend reading all of the books I mentioned here in their entirety sooner or later. If you’re looking for an in depth scholarly discussion of apologetic views, by all means, read John’s book, not mine. His terrific work points out specifically why apologists are incorrect; mine points out why they’re unreliable to begin with. I’m also sending a copy to John as thanks for inviting me to contribute on his blog. If he reads it, I’m sure he’ll let you know what he thinks. So get it, read it, praise it, or trash it if you want; I don’t care. I can at least be proud that I made a serious effort to leave humanity better than I found it.

Catholic Reviewer of My Book on Amazon: "Poor Research"

That's what one reviewer claims, despite what others say about it.

The first line states...

If Loftus became an atheist based on the information in this book, then he badly needs to do more research because his facts are wrong or out of date.

The reviewer levels this charge against me several times.

The hidden premise here is that if I did more research I would believe, and behind that premise lurks what I've argued is the Christian Illusion of Rational Superiority, which, Christian philosopher James F. Sennett agrees with me about; that it is an illusion.

Besides, this "out of date" charge is unjustifiably leveled at non-believers far too often. There are many more Christian apologists, theologians, and philosophers, many of whom are paid to do little more than research, so of course they are spitting out new books every single day, each one of which might be considered the latest research. Atheists are in a minority. Many who teach in the universities who are not tenured are scared of losing their jobs if they write against the Christian faith, and most all of us do not get paid to do research into these topics much less produce as many books in response to this latest research. Just look at the number of “fleas” Richard Dawkins has in response to his book! Neither he nor any other atheist writer can hope to answer the volumes of books written in response any one of our books. There will always be updated knowledge, anyway, and with the numbers of Christians writing, atheists cannot hope to compete in terms of books and articles. Maybe in the future atheists will outnumber Christian writers and then we can level that charge against them!

When it comes to the latest research here is a dilemma for Christians who make this charge: if the latest research is needed to defend the Christian faith, then either the reasons to believe prior to it were less than sufficient, or if the latest research is not needed then why should believers care about it now?

Having said this I don’t doubt that I’m wrong about some things. I’ve admitted this, and I’m willing to learn where I am wrong. But I do not think my errors undercut my overall case at all, until or unless my substantive arguments are undercut rather than nitpicking out a minor error or more, here and there. My argument is that how we see things is based upon control beliefs. They control how we view the evidence. And that case of mine was never undercut by this reviewer.

From looking at the other reviews this person wrote on Amazon he or she is a Catholic. Why is it that Catholics seem to be the most outraged at my book? Is it because I dismiss their faith and instead take aim at evangelicalism? I used to be a Catholic in my upbringing. But I reject their faith with the same confidence they reject Islam. I claim that since the Catholic church was seriously wrong with regard to the Inquisition, Slavery, Crusades, Witch Hunts, and protecting child molesting priests in today's world, I have no reason to trust her. I defended this view from another Catholic reviewer right here.

Furthermore, while I might be wrong about some things in my book, since I am just one person and I cover so many different topics in it, I think the reviewer grossly mischaracterizes my book. To say I've "never heard" or that I "ignore" or that I have "no response" to something is such an unfair characterization that I suspect the reviewer feels the need to lie in order to defend his or her faith. Here's just one example: it says that when writing about the problem of evil I "ignore the concept of heaven." Not so. See pages 251-52, and 256-57, and 261. Did he or she skip those pages? And on it goes. From this review one could think there is no value at all to my book or that it doesn't contain any good arguments, even though several scholars on both sides of the fence say otherwise.

This is not a review that anyone can trust overall. It has an axe to grind. With the reading skills displayed no wonder he or she believes. It is not fair or objective in any sense at all. I'm still waiting to learn from an educated Christian reviewer who has no axe to grind who will be fair and balanced with my book. Are there no such reviewers? The level of objectivity revealed by this reviewer and others shows they do not have a semblance of objectivity, and if that's the case, how can they claim to have any objectivity at all with regard to their faith? So far, I haven't seen it.

William Lane Craig v. Paul Draper Debate

Paul Draper and William Lane Craig’ s debate can be heard here. HT AIGBusted.

Other items of note while listening: there is an interesting site called My Thoughts Are Free, and another one called American Institute for Faith and Culture. From the title of this last site it seems authoritative, but who it is I don't know. He intends to deal one by one with the New Atheists and he has a link to DC. Enjoy.

There is No OT Prophecy Fulfilled in the Life, Death or Resurrection of Jesus

That's my claim, Christian. Do you want to dispute this? Once again, but to be more specific: There is no OT prophecy of Jesus' birth, ministry, death, or resurrection that is to be legitimately considered a prophecy that was fulfilled in any grammatical-historical sense pointing specifically to Jesus.

The View: On Creation and Evolution

After this episode I had my publisher send Joy (in purple) a copy of my book.

Are Skeptics Dogmatic Too?

I'm finding that some skeptics are just as dogmatic in claiming Jesus did not exist as Christians are who claim the Gospels are completely reliable. I've spent way too much time on this topic as it is, but see what you think of the discussion right here. [Edit] Before you comment below please read enough of that thread to see what's going on. What do you really think?

What Child is This?

We can probably agree we don’t like the commercialism of Christmas, the stress, or the holiday angst. Yet at the center of it all there is a powerful image that speaks to all of us – the Child. It’s fascinating to me that once a year so many people stop everything, or at least pause, to acknowledge a Child.


But who is this Child of Christmas and why does the image have such power? We have religious and secular interpretations, and I would like to suggest a third – a soulful interpretation.

For Christians, this is a specific Child, the baby Jesus, entering the world to be its savior. This is why the angels sing and the wise men visit. God has at last fulfilled his promise, and there is rejoicing.

For other people, not Christian, the Christ Child still represents hope and renewal. As with the solstice and the new year, the Child symbolizes the promise of new life and light. Our world is so weary with struggles, we all need the healing force of hope.

We have these religious and secular interpretations, and I would like to suggest a third – a soulful interpretation.

The Child archetype connects to each of us in a personal way as well. We were all children once and we can perhaps remember the innocence and freedom. It’s good to ask ourselves whether we still know how to laugh and enjoy life. The image of a baby instinctively raises questions, and brings up feelings.

On the deepest level, the Child connects to matters of the soul, which is the essence of how we actually experience being alive.

When new parents talk about holding a newborn, they talk of a “miracle” with overwhelming feelings. Anyone can have these feelings about a baby, and there is a tug on something deep within. What is that? This is our core, our Original Child, our personal manifestation of the archetype, alive deep inside.

This is not the Christ child or just a symbol of hope. This is the Child we all know is still present but may be lost or buried. Our life patterns, our “personalities,” our many roles, our anxieties, our regrets, our plans, our endless thoughts, all conspire to distance us from who we once were – infants with magical capability for presence and joy.

The author of the paper, “The Infant as Reflection of Soul,” William Schafer, says “Babies by their very existence call us back to something we all sense we have lost. They do not enchant us simply because they are ‘cute.’” He says infants frequently hint that they are capable of experiences we no longer commonly enjoy – original experiences of energy, openness, and joy. In early infancy, Schafer says, these are profoundly essential human spiritual experiences. The pure, calm awareness of a baby is free of internal commentary, judgment, comparison, fear, or desire.

Interestingly, in the spiritual Balinese culture, babies are not allowed to touch the ground for the first year of life. They are considered closer to God than adults. In any culture, one only needs to look into an infant’s eyes to see a being that is absolutely in the present, that has no agenda whatsoever, that is open to the simple miracle of being alive. This delight is pure and plain in a smile, a look, a wriggle of total energy. The ego has not emerged; there is just being. Worries about the past and concerns for the future do not exist; the moment is timeless, endless. In Schafer’s terms, infant joy of this kind is the natural, inevitable consequence of presence.

In contrast, adults experience split-second judgments that erode the capacity for joy. If we have a bad experience, we can’t wait for it to end. If we have a good one, we want more of it and we worry that it might stop. Either way, joy—the sense of being open and drawn to our actual experience in wonder and curiosity without fear or repulsion—is veiled. We end up living lives in which most of our time is spent wanting to be in some other moment than the present one.

But if we choose, we can learn from infants. We need to see them with new eyes and let them be our teachers. We can let them remind us of what we have lost. Each of us is still innocent, life-loving, and capable of the soulfulness we see in infants’ eyes. And part of the archetype of the Child is the capability of great transformation.

So this season, let’s consider what it might mean to honor the Child – first of all in ourselves, and then in each other. We can slow down and look around. We can be gentle, making room for magic. Enjoy the pattern of raindrops on the windshield while stuck in traffic or laugh at the funny ringtone on somebody’s cell phone. We can remember that we are all connected. We can allow ourselves to feel joy for no reason. For me, I plan to cherish every chance to look into the eyes of a young Child. I expect I will learn something I can use when I look out of my own Child eyes. I will practice delight.


Reference: Schafer, W. (2004). The infant as reflection of soul: The time before there was a self. Journal of Zero to Three. National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families, 24: 3, pp. 5-8.

Marlene Winell, Ph.D., is a psychologist and former fundamentalist who specializes in recovery from harmful religion. She is the author of Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving Their Religion. Her website is www.marlenewinell.net.