Haberdashery

What do you call Parachuting Attorneys?
Skeet.

On another discussion, I saw a reference to the article by Dr. Montgomery regarding the application of legal principles to the claimed testimony of the authors of the New Testament Books. Mr. Packham has written an ample reply. (Read them if you are aching to read a Christian apologetic that makes reference to books with titles such as Wigmore on Evidence.)

As I was re-reading this article, it struck me that applying our legal system--specifically the American legal system of admitting evidence into the proofs, in order to substantiate the plausibility of the facts within the books of the New Testament does not help their reliability.

I understand the inclination to use the same method we see on TV, with its apparent deeply probing questions, and presentation of countering facts, and clever cross-examination, all with the result of bring forth the truth of what really happened before the credits roll in an hour or so. But the reality is that the way we allow testimony in a trial is not really designed to determine truth of ancient historical facts, nor was the New Testament designed to be 21st Century testimony in a trial.

It is like using a glove for a sock. Technically you probably can, but neither your foot, nor the glove will appreciate the effort.

The Glove

We initially look at the system being used—the American Judicial system.

We recognize that there comes a point of time in which two (or more) people cannot agree as to what happened, who is at fault, and/or how to allocate justice. Society created a system by which it attempted to resolve this problem in a manner that it hopes is the most fair to all involved. Part of that is digging out the most basic question of all—what happened?

First we make the trier-of-fact (either a judge or jury) as neutral to the outcome as possible. We do not allow the jury to get a “split” of any sums it awards. We keep family members and friends from being jurors or judges in cases their loved ones are involved. We attempt to remove (as much as humanly possible) any bias or prejudice from the person who must make the ultimate decision.

We recognize that a friend will have a natural inclination to find in favor of their friend.

Who were the neutral, unbiased individuals monitoring what was placed in the books of the New Testament? At what point did a person neither committed toward Christianity, nor against it, make the decision that a portion of a book, or a story or even a sentence either should or should not be included?

I want to be clear, I am not requiring that such an event should ever have taken place in the creation of the canon. But if we are using the legal system to make this determination, we need to recognize how the system works, including the method it uses to answer the simple question—what happened? And that method involves a decision-making performed by a person uncommitted to whether the events actually occurred or not.

Without that, we are not really using the legal system as an arbiter of the facts. I was surprised to see Dr. Montgomery confuse this fact. In his article he claims the Jewish religious leaders performed the tacit act of cross-examination (more on this later.) But then he states, “Such an audience eminently satisfies Given’s description of ‘both a cross-examiner and a tribunal.’” No, it does not! The cross-examiner is NOT neutral. The cross-examiner and the neutral tribunal, in our system is never the same. (It is possible that Dr. Montgomery was referring to those converted as the “neutral” and the religious leaders as the “cross-examiner” but this is not at all clear.)

Secondly, the practice strives to use only the best evidence available. This is the area of focus of Dr. Montgomery’s article and Mr. Peckham’s response. They discuss concepts such as hearsay, and ancient documents. Very good examples of what I mean by using the best evidence.

We are concerned, due to the fallibility of human memory, when a person testifies about what another person said. “Hearsay,” extremely simply stated, is a witness testifying as to what another person said. It looks like:

Witness: Joe told me—
Counsel: Objection! Hearsay.
Court: Sustained.

If we want to hear what Joe saw, we will bring in Joe to testify. How many times have we had the conversation where we thought someone said something that they claim they never did? I am certain my wife told me she would love for me to buy a big-screen television, yet oddly she makes the claim she never said such a thing!

We are concerned that the witness, even inadvertently, may introduce their own perception and alteration into what Joe said. We know the telephone game. One person whispers a statement to another and it passes around a circle of 20. We then hear how the statement is muddled and mixed up by the end. A picture of hearsay in action.

There are exceptions to the hearsay rule. Boring, everyday statements will slip through. “Joe said, ‘Hi,’” while technically hearsay, it is silly to exclude such trivial testimony. An exception, though, that highlights our concern for the best evidence is called “the Excited Utterance.” It is a statement that a person makes relating to a startling event, while under the excitement of the event, like this:

Witness: Joe staggered into my house, holding his chest with blood spurting between his fingers and exclaimed, “John shot me!”
Counsel: Objection! Hearsay.
Court: No, the exclamation was made during an exciting event, and clearly Joe was still in an excited state. Overruled.

The concept of denying hearsay evidence is the fear of introducing an element of dishonesty. The exceptions allow for situations in which it is hardly likely dishonesty would have a chance to occur. We doubt that Joe would be shot, and take a moment to reflect, “Now, I know I was shot by Sally, but it would be great to pin this on John, so I will rush in and blame it on John.”

We have all seen people’s immediate reactions to startling events. Their first reaction is genuine. There is no time for reflection. That is where the difficulty creeps in.

What if Joe says it the next day at the hospital? Is he still under the shock of the event? What about the next week? The next year. At some point, the court says, “Wait a minute. Joe is no longer in the state of shock.” We begin to question this exception to hearsay (and this is important) when the person has had an opportunity to pause and reflect upon what they would say.

We recognize that the next day, Joe might be more inclined to pin it on Sally, rather than John. Or he may not want to pin it on anyone. That time to pause and reflect causes a greater likelihood of dishonesty to occur. Therefore, we no longer want to hear what a witness says Joe said, we want Joe himself.

Think about the time to pause and reflect (and modify) between the events claimed, and the time it was written down concerning the books of the New Testament! In the article, this time is not even mentioned, but within a trial, it is extremely significant.

Mark: So Peter told me that Jesus said—
Counsel: Objection! Hearsay.
Court: How close to the time of the event did Peter tell you about it?
Mark: Oh, about 10 years.
Court: Sustained.

Worse we have hearsay within hearsay:

Mark: Jesus was baptized—
Counsel: Objection! Where did you learn that information?
Mark: Peter.
Counsel: Was Peter present?
Mark: Oh, no! Peter must have heard it from someone else.
Counsel: It is hearsay for Mark to say what Peter said, and even if it was not, it is hearsay for Peter to say what some unknown person said.
Court: Sustained.

Simply put—we want to hear it from the horse’s mouth. We don’t want testimony of what the witness hears someone else say happened. We want the actual eyewitness.

Bringing us to the Gospel accounts. We immediately see that, even if Christian conservative theological scholars are correct that the Gospel of Mark was information provided by Peter; using American rules of evidence, it is entirely hearsay and must be excluded. (Again, I am not making the argument we should use such rules to determine historicity—it is the Christian legal apologist that claims legal reasoning results in a verdict for the Christian faith.)

The Gospel of Luke must also be deemed inadmissible, as it is hearsay. (Luke 1:2). (Curiously, Dr. Montgomery dismisses Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger as being “secondary at best” yet does not explain why the Gospel of Luke is exempted from such treatment under the same strict application of the law.)

While traditionally, it is claimed that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness (the disciple) the book itself makes no such claim. In fact, the only statements would indicate that it was hearsay. (John 19:35; John 21:24)

The Gospel of Matthew likewise makes no claim to be an eyewitness, and Dr. Montgomery fails to even mention the fact that the author relies upon the Gospel of Mark in telling the story. That is hearsay (Matthew saying what Mark said) of hearsay (Mark saying what Peter said) of hearsay (Peter hearing of events such as the Baptism)!

Even if we make the leap, and assume the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, events are recorded that would necessarily come through hearsay evidence. Neither Matthew nor Luke was at the scene with the Magi or the Shepherds. John could not observe Pilate speaking privately to Jesus.

We start to see that using the legal system as our barometer does not help the Christian claim.

We sequester witnesses. This means only one witness can testify at a time and the other witnesses cannot hear what is being said. We want people to testify as to exactly what they remember they saw and not be influenced by other testimony.

Imagine Witness No. 2 who is fairly certain that the blue car went through a yellow light. But as he is sitting in a courtroom, Witness No. 1 states with resounding conviction, “That blue car went through a Red Light. A Red light, I tell you!”

Now Witness 2 begins to question their own memory. Did that light turn red, perhaps? Witness 1 seemed so certain. And it seems as if testifying differently is sorta calling Witness 1 a liar. So instead of Witness 2 testifying, “The blue car went through the yellow light,” they are far more likely to quantify their testimony, “As far as I recall the blue light went through the light as it was yellow, turning red. But it is possible it was already red before it went through.”

No longer are we getting the best eyewitness evidence. Even the witness, being as honest as possible, is starting to filter their own testimony.

Neither article addresses the problem of Witnesses 2 and 3 (Matthew and Luke) clearly being aware of Witness 1 (Mark). Did Matthew believe that the temple cleansing happened at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, but since Mark put it at the end, Matthew did as well? And what about Matthew and Luke modifying what Mark had to say? Are they correcting the other witness’ testimony?

We lose the independent testimony that the judicial system holds in high esteem.

A brief side note on “ancient documents.” At times, on Internet debates, I have seen the statement, “The Bible is accepted as evidence in a court of Law!” That is most likely true. (Although how a fact within the Bible could be relevant to a court case escapes me.)

When talking on this issue, we have to be careful to differentiate between “admitted as evidence” and “accepted as true.” The defendant could testify that they were abducted by aliens on the night of the crime, and therefore could not possibly be guilty. That testimony would be admitted. Simply because the rules of evidence allow it in, does not make aliens a reality!

The rules of evidence provide direction as to what can or cannot be provided to the trier-of-fact. They neither endorse, nor renounce that evidence. As the Bible is more than 20 years old, and of common knowledge, most courts would allow it in evidence if it was relevant in some way.

See, trials are designed to determine what happened in the immediate past. An accused is entitled to a speedy trial, to prevent evidence from deteriorating, or becoming lost. The reason that we allow documents more than 20 years old, is that they would have little bearing on events that occurred last year. We are focused on the immediate past, not ancient history.

In the same way, if relevant, we would allow the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, and the Communist Manifesto. When viewed in that light, is it all that remarkable that some court would mark “Exhibit One” on a Bible?

The third aspect of our glove—the American Judicial system—is that it is adversarial. It is designed and intended to bring out the truth by placing people on polar opposites, and have them argue for their position, and against their opponent.

We expect and pattern the system expecting that a witness will be cross-examined by a skeptic, that evidence will be presented against the other person’s position, that the litigants will provide argument directly contrary to the other’s position in order for the neutral to decide which is more plausible.

Where was the cross-examination of the authors of the New Testament?

Dr. Montgomery appears to recognize the fatal flaw in the application of the judicial system, by the lack of such a cross-examination, acknowledging that they were never literally placed in a witness chair. To avoid this, he asserts there was the “functional equivalent” of cross-examination by virtue of the Jewish religious leaders that would have confronted the Disciples.

Of course the one thing we do not have is a single scrap, or independent verification of any such “cross-examination.” Josephus lists the various sects among the Jews, and seems to be completely unaware of this group known as “Christians.” Pliny the Younger has to torture them to even discover who they are, and what they believe. Tacitus makes a passing mention of them as being scapegoats, but no statements as to the validity of their claims.

Where is this cross-examination? We would need to answer some very key questions, which frankly we have no information on:

1) When, in relation to the events, was the testimony stated?
2) To Whom?
3) Where?
4) Was a person contrary to the position present?
5) Did this person have means, opportunity and motive to respond?

Dr. Montgomery relies upon the Book of Acts to claim that it was within 2 months that the testimony was provided, and then to people who had the opportunity to respond. However, Acts was written long after these events happened. What we really need is a person who was aware as to whether the events of Acts happened at the time the Book was written.

If I write of events that happened in World War II, we need someone both aware of my book AND aware as to the reality of these events. One is not enough.

Where are these “functional equivalent” cross-examiners when Christianity was being spread through Corinth and Ephesus and Rome? Every time a missionary told of Jesus rising from the grave, was there a nearby Jewish leader who was aware of the events in Judea in order to “functionally” cross-examine the missionary?

The forest that is missed for the trees, in this allegation of “functional equivalent” of cross-examination is that trials are closed environments! We carefully limit the evidence provided to the tribunal by giving each side a full opportunity to examine each witness, but that is it. It is not a public forum or a free-for-all or a bar room discussion!

If Paul stood up and eloquently spoke out, stirring the emotions of a crowd, utilizing careful rhetoric, timing, humor and persuasive speech—the crowd is not sitting back saying, “Well, O.K. But let’s hear what he says when the Jewish leaders perform the ‘equivalent’ of cross-examination.”

Which brings us to…

The Foot

Is what the disciples and apostles were claimed to be doing both in spreading the Gospel, and writing the books the same as testimony?

We go to a party, and a friend begins to tell of a fish he caught. While we may suspect it was not quite that big, do we subject them to intensive cross-examination? Of course not! We recognize it for what it is—a fish story.

Or a person making a business presentation. Your child tells you of their day in school. Your teenage daughter tells you that she was out late with her boyfriend because of a flat tire. (O.K. That last one you might want to cross-examine!) Every day we have situations in which people communicate in a fashion that is not designed, nor intended to be testimony in a court.

Assuming the disciples were proclaiming events that happened in the recent past; it is placed in the form of persuasive speech—not testimony of disinterested answers about what one sees. When one agues persuasively, certain facts can be overlooked, inflections and emphasis made on specific events. It is far different than merely recalling facts.

What facts did they use? Jesus stated that those specific people would not receive a sign. (Mark 8:12) Or at best, just the sign of Jonah. (Mt. 12:39; Luke 11:29) Did the apostles refer to Jesus’ miracles? According to a book written many decades after the event, they did! (Acts 2:22) Which is it—was Jesus wrong and signs were received by the people or was the author of Acts wrong and signs were not received by the people? Careful cross-examination would be necessary.

Paul’s letters are replete with discourse over doctrinal issues. While mention is made of a few factual events, most is addressed to concerns regarding spiritual principles. If factual issues, such as the events of Jesus’ miracles, and the statements made by Jesus had already been testified and “cross-examined,” why wouldn’t Paul utilize them in his arguments?

It is as if Paul’s letters are the closing arguments, in which he never uses the testimony of the trial!

Further, assume that these disciples (or their close associates) wrote down the Gospels many years later. Were these intended to be the equivalent of testimony?

We can only speculate the intended audience of the Gospels. Were they documents designed to tell the story to non-believers and explain this phenomena surrounding the person of Jesus? Were they tales written to Christian communities to solidify the oral traditions?

I do not propose within this blog entry to even brush the alternatives that scholars have proposed regarding the writers, intentions or the audiences. However, within each of those possibilities, the type and depth of the quality of “testimony” of the Gospel changes.

For a most simple example—if the Gospels were written to non-believers, the writers would refer to common events in order to “place” or put markers within the story. In essence, give it a time and geography by which the non-believer would be familiar with the setting. However, if the Gospels were written to believers, they may not be as inclined to utilize such markers, as the believers were already convinced of the reality of Jesus. The believer would be far more concerned with what Jesus said and did, than where and when.

A different emphasis would appear, depending on the intended audience. (As we have both items within the Gospels, this is a matter of some dispute.)

Were the authors intending to write a defense of the reality of Jesus, or was the reality presumed? That would reflect different testimony.

Further, as pointed out, the gospels were written decades after the event. The authors may have forgotten, modified, been influenced by other oral traditions, obtained bad information through different witnesses, etc. How much was unintentional? How much was deliberate?

Frankly, to treat the Gospels as testimony is to treat them as static documents, complied at one time, and not provide the depth and interaction that we can now see. They are not simple, “This happened at noon. This happened at one. This happened at two.” There is a great more to them than that.

The Fit

Even with all that, if we apply the Legal system to the testimony of the disciples (with or without “functional equivalent” of cross-examination) it still fails!

We attempt to convince either a singular person (judge), a majority (civil) or a unanimous (criminal) tribunal. Christianity was present to the public at large, and not a singular tribunal.

From the very onset to today, Christianity has failed to convince a majority! It has offered its testimony. It has presented its case. And it has failed to convince its tribunal that the events of the First Century accorded as recorded in the Gospels. Why, in light of that simple fact, would one want to subject the disciple’s claims to our current legal system?

They did not convince a majority of Jews. They did not convince a majority of gentiles. Even taking the unverified claims of the book of Acts, Christianity for all its testimony was only convincing a few.

Now, one can justify that with the allegation that Christianity itself proclaims that only a few would believe. (Matt. 22:14) Find and good--then why use a methodology that requires a majority?

In conclusion, it appeared to me that the claims of the events of the First Century are mistreated in the attempts to use modern legal rules of Evidence in order to substantiate their existence. Honestly, it seems like a standard apologetic in which the claimant attempts to bolster the factual claims by making it look as if such claims were offered in a court today, they would preponderate.

They would not. It is not their fault—neither the system nor the claims themselves were intended to.

Reduced Price For My Book.

I'll let you know when my book is offered at a reduced price for anyone interested. It's now available for $13.57 and eligible for free shipping, at amazon.com. At this price they may not last long.

FYI, Two prominent evangelical philosophers will be reviewing my book this year. One reviewer is regarded by Christians as the dean of Christian apologetics. They're both sure to disagree with it, but if it's as bad as some Christians claim, then why would they even bother with it? I'll keep you posted, but give no further clues yet.

Alternatives To A Fiery Hell

Whether or not God wants to torture you is not the issue, that God will torture you is! If you do not please him in this life, if he does not deem you acceptable to him, then you are going to face the Alpha and Omega’s eternal retribution in the next life. Should you die in an unsaved condition, you are going to face the unchecked wrath of an infuriated, emulous God who will stop at nothing to make sure his enemies pay for their crimes against him. So says the Bible, particularly the New Testament of our ”loving Lord and Savior,” Jesus Christ.

Ten thousand centuries will come and go, and not one day in Hell will have ended. In the amount of time it takes a new universe to expand and collapse, not a single evening in the furnace of Hell will have gone by. In Hell, you’ll have nothing to do, and nothing to think about except your past and how you were nothing but a terrible disappointment to your creator. In addition to all the unceasing and unspeakable pain you’ll be feeling, you will have the added despair of knowing that the life you lived in the flesh was completely in vain. You will be fully awake to experience a nightmare above any nightmare you ever experienced while alive. And just when you think you can’t take anymore, an eternity of suffering awaits you still.

At least, that was the traditional view of hell. For totally understandable reasons, this view is losing out in popularity. You can attend some churches for 30 years and not hear a peep about Hell. People are ashamed of this merciless idea. They are ready for something new, for what modern apologists think is a better take on Hell. They are championing the acceptance of what they consider to be a more merciful form of Gehenna, one that is more easily seen as being in tune with a warn and loving Jesus with outstretched arms and a great big smile.

I am convinced that the doctrine of an eternal Hell has always been what makes more infidels out of men than any other bestial ideal of scripture. It makes the God of the Bible a villain like nothing a Hollywood producer ever brought to life on the big screen. Christian apologetics are asking you to just forget what every unrefined country Catholic, Baptist, or Pentecostal preacher ever told you about Hell. Just listen to these new oracles of the brotherhood! This is not really a new view as much as it is revitalized for the likes of the educated minds of today. Many defenders of the faith, like J.P. Holding for example, tell us that the fires of Hell are figurative, and so is the actual suffering experienced.

During my preaching years, I was a part of debates on the nature of Hell that were quite entertaining. Some of these spats came down to preachers affirming that hell contained “a spiritual form of fire that tortures sinners eternally,” or “some sort of spiritual pain in another dimension that Jesus described as physical burning.” Others went the traditional route, “Real fire await sinners in the next world.” So according to this view, I guess god established that spirits would retain some form of a nervous system that enables them to feel pain sensations even when they are disembodied?

Old and problematic as this belief was, it should be said that some preachers still fervently maintained that it was correct—sinners are literally barbequed each day! This is not an exaggeration! I once had a preacher woman from a holiness church in Alabama hand me a tape which she said detailed the recordings of a spirit journey into Hell to describe its horrors firsthand. She stated that at the end of each day in Hell, souls are “burnt to a crisp,” after which time they are again made whole, only to have the process start over and over again for all eternity! Very sadistic thinking, I must say!

If what modern apologists say is true, centuries of learned gospel preachers have been dead wrong in affirming the reality of such a place. These contemporary Christian thinkers tell us that the suffering experienced in hell is just suffering in the mind (in the spirit mind) of a deceased unbeliever. As he passed into eternity, his body died while his spirit (and therefore consciousness) lived on, but now his soul was separated from God into the “blackness of darkness” of the absence of the Almighty (Jude 1:13). This creates misery all by itself, and this likewise alleviates God from actually creating a Hell or inflicting pain personally. God just made sinners immortal as he has all human beings, and they chose to live in such a manner as to make God separate himself from them so that his righteousness would not be compromised.

This might sound a little nicer than the traditional view of a fiery Hell…at first. Upon further consideration, the position meets a quick and brutal end. Of all the dying and struggling theological positions out there, this one actually makes you feel sorry for modern Christians as they face the embarrassment of having a god who openly approves of torture by example. There’s really no way to water it down, though theists try like keeping afloat in quicksand.

For starters, this position denies some pretty plain scriptural language that seems to teach a literal place of torment (Luke 12:4-5). While good arguments can be made for a hell with figurative fire, it is undeniable that Luke 16:19-31 portrays the existence of a place of real suffering, the kind we were used to in our living bodies. If this is not the case, then the writer of Luke woefully misrepresented the facts—under inspiration of the Holy Spirit no less! But regardless of the presence of fire, we need not get bogged down in disputed details. The scriptures teach some form of suffering of the ungodly beyond the grave.

Regardless of the how, the God of the Bible still makes it clear that he wants disobedient souls that will never be redeemed to stay around for eternity and be miserable. Sure, it wasn’t his original will for them, but he doesn’t feel for us sinners enough to actually deliver us from all possible suffering. God decided that it was fine with him if we suffer for a lifetime of mistakes no matter how sincere those mistakes may have been in their making. We infidels are headed to a place of agony to grope in the darkness of damnation. Our unending groans for mercy will not cause him to have pity on us and deliver us from the merciless condition we will be in. It would just be too much for him to put the sinner out of his misery, to blot him out of existence when he dies!

God has declared that “there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust” (Acts 24:15), and “them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2). God may have wanted all to be saved, but since they “chose” not to be, he is pleased to see them suffer unimaginable pain. The fact that he can stand by and watch as some of his children endure endless centuries of anguish, anguish a man or woman could not possibly deserve from a single lifetime of bad deeds, is what makes him a hideous, indescribable presence. To call him an exceedingly cruel cosmic tyrant makes him sound much nicer than he is! It whitewashes him, in other words.

Getting an unbeliever to accept the concoction of hell is the hardest thing for a believer. The problem for the Christian is that they are always better, kinder, and more compassionate than the deity they serve. They would never dream of leaving even a small animal to die a prolonged death out in the street, much less suffer forever, and yet they are compelled to defend their God’s employment of this indefensibly merciless treatment of the unsaved. He knew when he created man and gave him an “immortal soul” that this would forever seal the fates of sinners to an eternity of unspeakable miseries. He went right on with our creation anyway.

The search for truth is not without its ironies, however. In this case, the irony catches the believer off guard; this new perception of hell is an even more fiendish one than the traditional fiery view they are trying to get the whole world to abandon. It is not difficult to think of how the nature of each person’s “hell” would be distinct and varying according to one’s spiritual vices.

Advocates of this "more compasionate" view tell us Hell's suffering would be in the mind, the result of being away from the light of God, presumably feelings of loneliness, shame, hopelessness, and perhaps other agonies. So we could surmize that one who lived a life of pride might suffer an eternity of humiliation, and a person who belittled his fellow man with verbal abuse and degradation would forever be ridiculed as he ridiculed others. I suppose the same would be true for those who lived lives committing rape and murder. They would mentally experience for eternity the hurt they caused others. This would be directly in line with the Bible's teaching that we reap what we sow according to what was done in the body (2 Corinthians 5:10). Or would this be a fear-based mental Hell? While we’re considering alternatives to the fiery Bible Hell, we might as well get creative and go a step further. Why not a personal, Freddy Krueger-inspired Hell where we face our worst fears, and not just spiritual vices?

My earliest fears of hell did not consist of fire at all, but of being confined to a featureless bright white hallway that goes on forever in two directions. It is small and narrow, has no doors or windows, and has no places to sit or lay down. The punishment was to walk forever, enduring loneliness. It wasn’t until a certain sincere but misled family member I loved took me aside and told me, “Joe, there will definitely be some flames in hell, so you better not use the Lord’s name in vain!” that I began to be afraid of the fire notion. Someone else might have a fear of worms, or spiders, or being torn apart by a huge centipede, in which case they would mentally suffer such things in their minds. This type of hell would be incomparably worse for each individual than one standard hell for everyone. So if either of these derivations describing the “real” Hell are true, then Hell is not really a place, just a sort of mental/spiritual/psychological software that automatically downloads when we die to put together for us the worst torture possible in the afterlife!

Picture a man strapping you down to a chair and attaching a device to your head. It probes your brain to find out where your worst fear lies. When it finds your weakness, it exploits it, subjecting you to the most heightened level of misery conceivable. I fail to see how such an intellection would be any more merciful than Dante’s description of a hell with pits of fire and horned demons, punishing naked and tormented souls, buried in pits of dung and boiling blood! Regardless of the details of exactly how it is administered, suffering is suffering and torture is torture no matter what form it takes.

At the base of all this terror is the fact that none of this can be called justice by any stretch of the imagination. No one, not even the devil himself, could be worthy of truly eternal suffering. Eternal torture is worthless. It does not bring about correction or rehabilitation. It is no means to an end. It does not serve a practical use, like governments applying torture to terrorists to get them to divulge the location of weapon of mass destruction. It is nothing but a cruel and vindictive invention, like the cold, germy, sharp, steel instruments found in the basement of a psychopath.

Hell is a purely brutish payback perpetrated by a powerful barbarian who rules the skies with an easily bruised ego. The slightest thing pisses him off. He runs around with his giant war hammer, scaring the crap out of everyone, but amazingly, he wants to make friends! He is surprised when people run from him and see him as an evil ogre. He apparently doesn’t understand why intelligent, decent people want nothing to do with him. No one likes a bully! But now the bully pretends to be compassionate; he throws everyone for a loop by creating the greatest contradiction anyone ever saw; he sends his son to bring a supposed message of peace and mercy, but should you reject his son and his message, the barbarian father again pulls out that trusty war hammer and takes care of business the old fashioned way! Just like a true bully, you don’t have a choice in the matter! You have to befriend him…or you get the war hammer!

A two-bit numbskull might even realize that this logically destroys any real “choice” that God assures us we have. We are told that God only sends those to Hell who have chosen to go there, but this is just ridiculous. I could offer you the “choice” of a million dollars or cancer, but a halfwit would understand that such a choice would not be a very good one! I wonder why respectable, knowledgeable Christians don’t see this problem?

This reminds me of a certain Simpson’s episode where a cult worshipping “The Leader” comes into Springfield and indoctrinates the whole town into following him. When they put the people into their convent and people start to express the desire to leave, they say, “You are free to leave at any time.” But the moment they try to leave, the person is met with attack dogs and spike pits! The God of the Bible is every bit like these funny cartoon caricatures of some of his followers, offering unbeatable hope and bliss on the one hand, and misery and torture on the other.

The doctrine of Hell will never be compatible with a merciful deity. A nice, smiling preacher in a suit, writing smooth articles, trying to make the position sound refined and graceful won’t work. Taking literal fire out of the picture will not do it either. The smallest fiber of common sense tells us that we put a sick dog out of its misery. We don’t torture it because it bit us on the leg. Hell defies decency, civility, morality, compassion, and sound judgment. I am glad to see modern Christians becoming ashamed to profess belief in it.

(JH)

Things I Like About No Longer Being a Christian

When I saw Matthew's post this morning it made me think of the post I just wrote on my blog Frasch Ideas a couple of days ago. I got to thinking about all the reasons I like about not being a Christian and wrote them down. I agree with Matthew that Christian's seem to think they have a monopoly on Love and Joy and Peace. But I feel ever so much better (relieved, even) since I left first the church, then Christianity and then God. As much as they might hate to admit it, even the Christian side of my family would have to say I am a much happier person now. So, here for your pleasure is: Things I like about no longer being a Christian (or as Matthew says: The Joy of Being a Heathen).

This is all there is; make the most of it.

I like this thought better than thinking about spending eternity in heaven. This makes life more exciting and enjoyable. I know I can't just laze around because I've got something better coming. I appreciate my world more now and want to take care of it because this is all there is, and all those who come after me are going to have.

There is no fear of punishment.

No more do I have to worry if god is going to punish me or my kids or my friends because we did something wrong, or chose an alternative lifestyle, or because of the sin of the world. I no longer have to view tsunamis and AIDS as punishent sent by God.

My relatives are no longer in hell.

This is a feeling not like any other. Imagine being told by the scriptures and your pastors that anyone not believing on the Lord Jesus Christ would go to hell when they died. I was sure my grandfathers were in hell. It is amazing to me how much this is preached except at a funeral. Then the unbelievers (or rather their families) are given a hope that maybe there was a deathbed conversion. I've never heard a pastor say, "Sorry Mrs Jones, we know your husband was an unbeliever and he is hell right now." If they really believed that unrepentant sinners go to hell, then they should say so right in the face of the mourning. It is easy to say when speaking in generalities, but hard to say to Mrs Jones if she asks you where her husband is.

There are no taboo questions.

As a matter of fact, questions are encouraged. Searching is encouraged. Coming up with different ways of looking at things are encouraged.

There is no more guesing God's will.

What a farce that always was, trying to figure out god's will. How do you figure it out when he won't say anything? If you are lucky the Bible says something about it, but if not you are left with trying to discern the will of god on your own, through your feelings.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
- Susan B. Anthony

No more thinking I must be sinning because of adversity.

Here is what I know now - bad things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people, good things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. That's life; shit happens. Most people are good most of the time and most of the time life is good. That's what I look for now.

I can take credit for what I do.

If something good happens in my life and I worked hard for it, I can say it is because I worked hard for it. I don't have to give god the credit. By the same token,if I mess up I have to take responsibility and not say the devil made me do it.

I don't have to mess with the problem of unanswered prayer.

This is such a relief. One, I don't have to pray anymore and two, I don't have try to figure out the right way, the way to make things work, the way to make things happen. I don't have to have the convoluted mess of scripures in my head that contradict each other or that show the way alongside another one that shows the way. I don't have to have answers as to why my prayer isn't working, why god didn't heal so and so even though we followed all of the rules.

I don't have to witness or feel guilty for not witnessing.

I used to hate witnessing. I never was very good at it. I didn't like butting into people's personal lives, especially uninvited. Instead, I indoctrinated little children in Sunday School and Good News Bears for which I repent.

I don't have to fear for my unsaved friends and family members souls.

And even when I did witness, it didn't mean that they accepted Jesus. And then I felt guilt for not convincing them and fear that they would end up in hell because I didn't do enough. I spent hours and hours praying for my dad to be saved so he could be in heaven with us. God never answered, or maybe he said no.

I have every Sunday completely free.

I can sleep in every Sunday now and have my whole day free, no Sunday night services, no practice sessions, no Wednesday nights, no council meetings, no special meetings, no offerings, no tithing. Sundays are my own (along with the rest of my week)

">

The Martyrdom Argument

The Martyrdom Argument

A popular argument for the resurrection these days is one that has been popularized by Christian apologist and author, Josh McDowell. The argument goes something like this:

People will die for a lie if they think it's a lie but no one will die for something they knew to be false. If the resurrection happened, the disciples knew it! They wouldn't die for something that they knew to be a lie so we can only conclude that they died for something that they knew to be true!

There is a fatal flaw in this argument. It is based on a false dichotomy. It presumes, without proving, that the disciples were in an inescapable position to know whether the resurrection happened and that they couldn't have been mistaken. This results in a false dichotomy, with the only choices being a deliberate lie and honest truth. I ask about the possibility of delusion? This is the problem with this argument: it is sophistry. It creates a simplistic argument by ruling out the possibility of delusion on epistemic grounds rather than trying to refute the possibility of delusion on historical grounds. If we are to grant that the earliest Christians believed in an 1.) empty tomb, that 2.) Jesus had a risen body of flesh, and that 3.) God had indeed raised him from the dead, we are at best left with three possibilities: the truth, a deliberate lie, and sincere but powerful delusion.

I don't believe that the resurrection happened for two reasons. First of all, I believe that supernatural/miraculous claims (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) require supernatural/miraculous forms of evidence. I have no supernatural/miraculous evidence today or from history. I have never had an audio/visual experience from God, in which God appeared to me, face-to-face, telling me that his Son has risen from the dead. I have never had God reveal to me something in the form such a theophany and giving me some powerful, undeniable, irrefutable proof that I was not hallucinating (such as being under the influence of some environmental or chemical agent), or the victim of some kind of cruel yet convincing extraterrestrial prank or delusion or some sort. This might not be enough in itself to convince me but at least it would be a right step in the direction of meeting this standard of evidence. Neither do I have any supernatural/miraculous evidence from history itself. I have no first-century evidence from secular historians who were on the scene in ancient Palestine, following Jesus around, witnessing his miracles, interviewing people who supposedly saw these miracles, interviewing skeptics and critics who had either been won over as converts or tried explaining embarrassing details away. I know of no historical report or documentation in which a highly-educated, world-class, first-rank, widely-respected historian of the 1st-century Mediterranean who witnessed the crucifixion, dishonorable burial of Jesus, and the risen Jesus. I know of no such historian or group of them who saw Jesus themselves, confirmed that Jesus was dead, confirmed that he did not survive the burial, was not reburied elsewhere, or that the body was misplaced or stolen, who witnessed an empty tomb, witnessed angels and the women's interaction with angels, interviewed the women and angels, saw the risen Jesus and interviewed him, and trying to have Jesus help them to verify for themselves that they were not mistaken or deluded somehow, interviewing the disciples, asking them hard, critical questions to make sure that they were not mistaken or deluded, somehow, and being there to witness the ascending Jesus, the Holy Spirit alleging coming upon the disciples at Pentecost. This would be a step in the right direction towards providing supernatural/miraculous evidence from history.

But, this is not the evidence that we have. Instead of providing multiple attesting secular and Jewish sources from reputable historians on the scenes to witness these alleged miraculous events, Christians will offer the New Testament itself. They might appeal to its inerrancy as supernatural/miraculous evidence of its truth claims. This is the second reason I don't believe that the resurrection happened: I consider the resurrection narratives to be errant. I believe that the canonical synoptic gospels contradict the gospel of John when the synoptics have Mary Magdalene and her companions go the empty tomb, encounter angels, and return to the disciples, successfully delivering the message of the angels: that Jesus had risen from the dead. Yet in John, Mary Magdalene first encounters the tomb and without so much as entering it, runs and tells the disciple that the body has been taken and the women don't know where it is. Luke records that on the eve of the resurrection that Jesus appeared to eleven disciples but John says that only ten were present; unlike in Luke, doubting Thomas wasn't present in John. Matthew records the women arriving at the tomb, an earthquake happening, and angel descending and opening the stone for them, all after they arrive at the tomb. Other gospels (Mark and Luke) say that when the women arrive the stone had been removed already, and whatever women were present didn't encounter angels until after they had entered the tomb. I believe that Matthew and Mark tend to only present one angel as being at the tomb while Luke and John have more than one angel. Matthew and Mark, I believe, place the first appearance of Jesus to his disciples in Galilee while Luke and John have it in Jerusalem.

After rejecting the resurrection hypothesis for these two reasons, I will now discuss the next option: a deliberate lie. I don't think that this is necessarily impossible but I do grant that this is probably unlikely. I believe that this is not impossible, though. My reason for thinking so is that the New Testament was written in an honor-shame society. They didn't general have that big of a concern for precision writing nor were they absolutely obsessed with always being honest no matter what. In such a society, there was such thing as an honorable lie. I believe that it's certainly possible (yet very unlikely, historically speaking) that the resurrection might have been the result of an honorable lie. If the in-group’s collective honor was at stake or if they believed that it was more honorable to die for something they considered a lie, I can see the possibility that they might have died for a deliberate lie as long as they conceived the lie to be an honorable one. I regard this as unlikely because I don't see any reason why being martyred for a deliberate lie would be more honorable than confessing that their mission was based on deceit.

After rejecting the possibility of deliberately deception as being historically unlikely, I come to the possibility I regard as being the most likely: sincere delusion. Here is where I see Christian apologists having a major inconsistency in their apologetics. Apologists of yesteryear like McDowell, C.S. Lewis, and the apologists of today, like William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, and Mike Licona, set about arguing against the historical probability of any kind of delusion or hallucination theory. But if they had confidence in this argument of McDowell's, one would wonder why they would be trying to raise up the possibility of delusion, only to knock it down again? The very fact that they waste ink on theories of delusion and hallucination only betrays whatever confidence they might have or had in this martyrdom argument of McDowell whether they realize it or not. Even McDowell doesn't seem to realize this as he assembles a rebuttal of the hallucination theory in his tome Evidence That Demands a Verdict and then argues for this martyrdom argument in his book He Walked Among Us. The problem with their rebuttals of the hallucination theory is that they are destroying the wrong target. Their rebuttals, which persist even to this day, have been invalidated not only by examples from history but also from the findings of cultural and psychological anthropology. These findings and insights have been applied to the New Testament and as a result, a field of New Testament studies has arisen in the past decades, New Testament sociological criticism, which the Context Group has been at the forefront of.

What this criticism has revealed is that there is a world of difference between the culture that produced the New Testament text and our culture. The ancient culture of the 1st century Mediterranean is what anthropologists call an honor-shame society while cultures such as American, Britain, and Australia are what anthropologists might call a pride-guilt society. In honor-shame societies there occur visions. These visions involve altered-states-of-consciousness and come in two types: group visions and individual visions. Two Context Group scholars, Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh have written two excellent books applying these anthropological insights to the gospels, their Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels and their Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. They note that visions involving these altered-states-of-consciousness happen frequently, can definitely involve groups of people at the same time, and are considered normal in both antiquity and modern honor-shame societies. Although a rigorous, historical theory of Christian origins, based on such visions, to my knowledge has yet to be fully worked out, such visions do, in my opinion, form the basis of a sincere and honest delusion among the earliest Christians.

I do believe, however, that Christian apologists like Craig, Habermas, Licona have successfully refuted hallucination theories in their works but I am convinced that these works have been outdated and I believe that they are to be shamed for not applying and carefully studying New Testament sociological criticism and incorporating it into their writings. Even if many apologists have written their works before sociological criticism had arisen as a discipline of New Testament studies, wouldn't they be endowed with the responsibility of carefully studying antiquity and modern day societies to ensure that any such visionary experiences do not occur at all? If I was a Christian apologist, I would be consulting with cultural anthropologists and try to be as careful as I could, trying to figure out if such visionary experiences, such as those involving altered-states-of-consciousness could and do occur. Even if such data was unknown back then, I don't think it would excuse apologists from conducting such anthropological studies decades ago to see if they could rule out such a possibility which has become since, well studied and well known in these past few decades among anthropologists.

In fact, I would submit that hallucinations are rare, highly individualistic occurrences here pride-guilt societies such as America, Britain, Australia, and elsewhere. Visions (and the resulting visionary experiences) are frequent, highly collectivistic occurrences in honor-shame societies and can involve both single people and groups of people at the same time. The difference between a hallucination and a vision, seen from a sociological perspective, becomes evident, in my perspective. Christian apologists would have a greater and more effective case against the possibility of delusion if Christianity had its origins here in America or another pride-guilt culture, where hallucinations are, indeed, rare, individualistic occurrences. But Christianity originated in the Mediterranean, in a 1st century honor-shame, collectivistic society where such visionary experiences are frequent and common. This, I submit, best explains the origins of Christianity.

I should have to add though, that I believe that all visionary experiences are naturally-caused and are not in need of any supernatural or miraculous explanation. I should also hasten to point out that I don't believe a full-fledged general theory of Christian origins has been fully worked out from the basics of sociological criticism of the New Testament, which I hope to work out in graduate school. But I do believe that delusion is the best explanation and the likeliest explanation of the facts that we have so far. My purpose in writing here, however, is not to propose such a detailed theory, but to answer the argument. To expose the illogical nature of the argument as well as conduct a brief analysis of the possible options is what I believe is necessary to answer this argument of Christian apologists.

The Joy of being a Heathen!

The Joy of the Heathen

Not all of my myth-debunking is necessarily academic or scholarly in nature. While I plan to spend considerable time debunking Christian apologetics, inerrancy, the resurrection, and other concepts for years to come, there are also some myths that Christians have that are cultural in origin. One of the myths that I hear quite a lot is that heathens have no sense of joy. Many Christians believe that they- and only them- have a monopoly on hope, joy, and laughter. When some of these folks hear that someone like John Loftus, Richard Carrier, Farrell Till, or myself are atheists, the response can sometimes be condescending pity. How many times have many of us heard a Christian say "You must have a really sad life!" or "It must be awful to have no sense of joy or purpose"? My dad is a minister, whom to this day, believes that us "heathens" (an umbrella term for all non-Christians) cannot have any joy without Jesus Christ. I sometimes have to wonder at my dad's intellectual honesty. My dad has acknowledged that I am a more joyful person today as an atheist and "heathen" than I ever was as a Christian. I overheard my dad say recently to some Christian friends of his while conducting a Bible study that you cannot be joyful without Jesus Christ in your life. But my dad knows for a fact that I am a joyful person. I am at a loss as to why he would make such a statement when he knows that I am very joyful and happy in life?

The fact of the matter is that many "heathens" that I know of today are very joyful and basically happy people, especially atheists. Carrier, Loftus, Till, Holman, Barker, and countless others are very joyful and happy people. The simple fact of the matter is that from an early age I never thought that Christians had a monopoly on joy. But many Christians do believe otherwise. My dad believes that only Christians can have true joy and hope in life. As I was growing up, my dad believed that a glowing testimonial was the only reason why anyone should ever be a Christian. This was the reason he was a Christian and he thought that just because it worked for him it should work for about anyone, particularly his own kids. My dad believed that without Jesus Christ, it was impossible to have any joy or hope in your life. My dad just couldn't understand how any heathen, after meeting him, could ever possibly not want to become a Christian. They were just so purposeless, miserable, and sad that he honestly didn't know how they could resist not wanting to become a Christian. If his testimonial was not convincing enough to them, then there must be something seriously wrong, psychologically, with these people for them to love being miserable.

I never thought that glowing testimonials were evidence that Christianity was true or not. I thought as a teenager that Christianity lived or died on historical evidence. I also knew that glowing testimonials were worthless because many different religions, spiritualities, and philosophies had converts all with their glowing testimonials of how their conversion brought them joy and peace of mind. One might think that some atheist or agnostic convinced me of this when I was teenager. Right? Wrong! It was the apologetics book Many Infallible Proofs which was written by recent-creationist Henry M Morris. He was the one who argued for apologetics precisely because many different religions had glowing testimonials. I was very much into apologetics as a teenager. In fact, when I was a teenager, say about 15 or 16, I was interested in a career in theology and apologetics. I had just encountered the word "apologetics" in the dictionary and it was defined as a branch of theology that was concerned with the proof of Christianity. To a teenager, this was beautiful music to my ears. When I expressed this to my dad, he was not supportive of the idea at all. Theology and apologetics were a waste of time! My dad decided to talk me out of it. My dad tried to talk me into becoming an inventor. Why? Because inventors make a lot of money and my dad wanted his sons to be wealthy.

This wasn't enough to steer me from apologetics and my dad was contemptuous of my interest, it seemed. How could I be interested in apologetics? But I was interested in apologetics because I was struggling with some difficult questions. What evidence was there to justify faith? If I was wrong enough to buy into the claims about Santa Claus, was I also wrong to buy into the claims of my parents about God and the Bible? One of the biggest issues I wrestled with for many years was the age of the earth and reconciling it with Christianity. I read some books on the subject, all from a recent-creationist viewpoint. My dad came up with what he considered to be his own solution to the problem. Adam, my dad reasoned, was not created as a baby but as a fully-grown adult. Therefore, my dad asked, why couldn't God created the universe "fully-grown"? My dad thought that this was a simple, elegant, beautiful, and perfect solution to the problem. My dad thought that it was so simple and elegant that he was absolutely surprised that any Christian upon hearing it would not immediately believe it. In fact, my dad was scornful of people, it seemed to me, who did not buy into it! Why wasn't this amazingly simple solution to the problem enough to end the entire debate with no questions asked? My dad believed that if anyone didn't find it compelling it could only be because they were just trying to make a problem harder than it necessarily had to be. After all, Christians had their glowing testimonials to share with heathens and so why would they waste so much time and ink on what my dad considered to be a non-problem?

I realized that there were serious problems that my dad was very ignorant about. My dad hadn't studied geology, astronomy, biology, or theology in sufficient enough detail to know what the problems with his "mature-creation" hypothesis. My dad thought he didn't need to. How could something so elegant, so simple, so obvious-sounding and so perfect be possibly wrong? I knew of the problems that my dad's hypothesis (which was thought of long before my dad was even born) but I figured that it was a waste of time to reason with him about it. As a minister in these years, he was so stubborn and set in his ways, that nothing short of a genuine Christophany could ever change his mind. Nor could I tell him about what I learned from reading Morris' book. My dad wouldn't hear of it. If my dad heard of glowing testimonials from any other religion, spirituality, or philosophy, my dad would assume that the person giving the testimonial was somehow dishonest or deluded. After all, if my dad's testimonial was true, theirs just had to be wrong. And that was the end of the discussion for my dad. But it was precisely because I didn't really have much of a testimonial myself that I dug deeper and deeper into apologetics. It was because I no longer felt God's presence that I delved deeper into apologetics.

My dad is wrong. But for more than one reason though. Not only do many religions, spiritualities, and philosophies (both spiritual and secular) have glowing testimonials but being a Christian (or trying to be one) doesn't bring one joy and hope. For many years I sincerely considered myself a Christian yet I had no sense of hope or joy in my life. Since leaving the faith and gradually evolving from an Evangelical to a Deist, then to an agnostic, and finally to an atheist, I have changed in my life. I have become much more joyful over the years. Deconverting cured me of my deep clinical depression that I suffered for over five years. For most of the years that I considered myself a Christian, I was not at all joyful or happy but deeply depressed. In fact, for anyone who prays that I will return to the fold and go back to being a Christian, I ask those folks, do you seriously want the old Matt back?

I believe that I was not a very likeable kind of guy back in the years I considered myself to be a Christian. Sure I was a kind and smart but I wasn't really a likeable kind of fellow, at least not for fellow Christians. The problem was my character and temperament. I am a serious kind of guy. My temperament is such that I am naturally inclined to take myself quite seriously. There is an old saying that could apply to me from the New Testament, that I don't "suffer fools gladly". This is said of people who have very little patience or tolerance for foolishness or goofiness. I am a pretty serious guy. But this doesn't mean that I never laugh. I take myself quite seriously but I try not to take myself too seriously. I enjoy a good hearty laugh these days but it usually comes when I watch something hysterically funny like my favorite comedy show My Name is Earl or reruns of Frasier. Back in my Evangelical days, I took myself as seriously as I could. People would say that I took myself too seriously back then. In fact, I even got the nickname "Old Soberface" from my grandmother. I remember in my freshman year of college, I met a good buddy named Derek. Derek was a Buddhist and he was one of the most confident and joyful people I have ever met. Yet Derek told me that he thought I was "too damned serious".

My worst critic was my dad. My dad would constantly complain about my incessant seriousness. In fact, my dad would accuse me of being selfish because I hated teasing. It didn't matter if it was cruel teasing or good-natured ribbing. It was all the same to me. All teasing was spiteful and offensive to me. So, for some time, I grew resentful of my dad always criticizing me for this. My mother was pretty critical as well but not to the extent that my dad was. My mother would tell me that I reminded her of my grandmother Verna Lee (who, ironically, gave me the nickname!) In fact, my parents would complain that my grandmother had absolutely no sense of humor whatsoever and that I was getting to be just like her! Not only that but this was also the case in Church. I found the social atmosphere of Church to be contemptible. I wanted it to be serious. I was deathly serious and I wanted worship to be sober. If worship was to be joyful, fine then, no problem- but why couldn't we have a worship service that was as serious as could be and, at the same time, as joyful as could be?

It was also in these years that I was clinically depressed. The biggest reason I was depressed was because of my singleness. I would've sold my soul to meet the girl of my dreams in high school and throughout college, all I could ever think about was meeting the woman of my dreams. I got so depressed over this very issue that I not only flunked chemistry class in college but I withdrew from all of my classes because I was struggling with the will to live. I have to say that in all my years of attending Church, I never found most Christian women to my liking. I considered most of them to be romantically-repressed prudes who felt that having romantic feelings for a man other than Jesus himself was blasphemy! But worse than this, there was something I couldn't stand about most Christian women if not all of them: laughter. It seemed to me that most Christian woman couldn’t bear to associate with a man unless that man was hysterically funny and charismatic. In fact, it was my dad's desire to see me fall in love with making women laugh. I recall one time when I was about 16 or older when my dad had a talk with me. My dad said that the best way to attract a woman to me was to make her laugh and that this was pretty much the only way I was ever going to get a woman to fall in love and marry me. But attraction is a two-way street. If a woman loves to laugh, she is best-suited to a man who loves to make her laugh. But that was just it: I wasn't attracted to women who loved to laugh.

I am not proud of this but in my early twenties I became somewhat of a misogynist. I started to loathe women. I started to outright hate women and a big reason for this was because they loved to laugh. It got to the point where I had absolutely no use for women. The only use I could ever possibly have for a woman was sex. Other than that, I honestly wondered, what could I have in a female friend that I couldn't have in a fellow male? If I needed a friend to talk with, or cry with, I could do that with a fellow guy. Almost anything I could do with a woman I could do with a fellow guy. All the qualities of friendship that I needed could be adequately met in other men. The only thing I couldn't do with a fellow man was have sex with that man (well, procreative intercourse is what I mean here). That was the only purpose I thought a woman could possibly fulfill that a man couldn't. Therefore, all I needed was a spouse to have sex with and that was all the use I could ever have for any woman. This was a disgusting attitude but it was one that I had. I considered it only logical. What was Eve to Adam? A fellow buddy by which to shoot the breeze with? No. Eve was his wife. So, what possible purpose could any woman ever serve in my life if not a spouse? The answer was obvious to me: nothing at all. I had no use for them and I sure as hell wasn't going to make them laugh.

I consider myself a different person these days and for the better. I have a much more civilized view of women. I have many fellow female acquaintances because I have learned to see them as human beings. I have noticed a positive change in the better for me. I have learned not to take myself too seriously though I understand that my basic temperament is inclined towards seriousness. I don't hate women anymore but I find it hard to be attracted romantically to most women. In fact, I tend to think that I would rather have them as friends than anything else. My attitude has mostly reversed. I see them mostly as friends because I honestly don't imagine having any woman these days as a girlfriend or wife. Most women love a man with a sense of humor. I just do not find that attractive in a woman. If I am to have a romantic relationship with a woman, she has to take me seriously even if she doesn't take herself that seriously at all. The easiest way for a woman to attract me to her is to take me seriously. When a woman says that she likes me because I am sweet, then I can fall in love with her. The easiest way for a woman to insult or offend me is to tease me by making fun of me when I am trying to be serious. That is not only offensive but that is the hardest thing I can imagine being able to forgive.

The most surprising thing I have learned about some of my fellow atheists is their sense of humor and joy in life! My friend John has remarried. He and his wife Gwenn are a very happy couple. I cringe at the thought of John with someone who is not Gwenn. I cannot imagine John being happy with someone he couldn't laugh with! Ed Babinski, another good friend, recently told of a married atheist couple who were instrumental in getting an aspect of religion out of the public schools. This couple revealed the same secret to their happy marriage that John and Gwenn have: the key is laughter! These folks are so-called "heathens!" They're not supposed to love laughter and be joyful like that! In fact, it seems to me that many atheist couples are some of the happiest people that I know of! Loftus is, to me, proof that Christians have fallen prey to a nasty cultural myth: that you cannot have a life full of love and laughter if you're not committed to Jesus Christ! We don't need religion, faith, of Christ to be joyful and happy, full of love and laughter!

My own evolution from religion and reason has revealed this to be the case. I am more joyful today than I have ever been in my life! I have a new direction and I am on a path to a life that I love! I plan to be studying religion and the Bible in graduate school which has become my new life dream! My old dream was crushed and I consider it irredeemably damaged but I have found a new dream to live and this is one that brings me tremendous joy and happiness! My life seems a lot more joyful and relaxed. I no longer feel neurotic, having to constantly edit my thoughts so that the Christian god doesn't find them offensive or "sinful". I am free to indulge in any kind of sexual fantasy that I want to and I can freely enjoy the natural beauty of a woman's fully uncovered body all I want to. Many people, my fellow "heathens" have, too, found new hopes, new dreams, a new sense of joy and purpose. This to me was only confirmed when I read Ed Babinski's book Leaving the Fold. Many of the contributors sounded like they lived happier, more fulfilling lives, regardless of where they found themselves.

There is joy on the other side of the fence!

Some Christian Books.

The following books were written by professing Christians.

Some More Books Not Listed in the Sidebar

Gary Rendsberg - Genesis 1

At Ed Babinski's recommendation, I got on to some of The Teaching Company's excellent Religion courses. They have a host of courses on some wonderful topics. I figured I would start at the start and so downloaded Dr Gary Rendsberg's (Rutgers) Book of Genesis 24 lecture course.

In this course, Rendsberg recommends and uses the New JPS Translation of Genesis. The text of this newer translation is not available online (although the older 1917 version is) so forgive me if I refer to it but do not quote from it, as I am in China and it isn't easy to come by here.

Rendsberg notes that,

The first thing we notice about Genesis 1 is that, contrary to what most people might assume or believe, the world is not created ex nihilo, that is, “out of nothing.”

By using the JPS translation, he makes the assertion that according to the syntax of the Hebrew text, Genesis 1:1 is actually a dependant clause, dependant on Gen 1:2-3. That is the earth is in a state of preexistent matter and then God creates the world. He asserts that creation ex nihilo is a later theological development that was then read back into the Hebrew text, but which is not supported by the Hebrew text.

Of course he said a lot more, but I thought this is of note to those of us previously of the Christian tradition.

Test Your Beliefs As If You Were An Outsider!

Here's a video expressing my thoughts on The Outsider Test for Faith, although I don't make some of the exaggerated claims that are made in the video itself.

Mr. Deity Reigns!

You should take a look at Mr. Deity and laugh. It's both smart and funny.

David Wood's New Blog on the Problem of Evil

I want to welcome David Wood of Answering Infidels, to the world of Blogging (now everyone's doing it). He just started a new Blog titled The Problem of Evil. Since he and I have debated this topic and he's doing his Ph.D. work at Fordham University on it, it should prove interesting. You may want to see his arguments develop and check out my separate blog on this same topic here. I sent him the chapter from my book on this problem, so he knows all of my arguments! And he still disagrees? How could he? However, when he's done examining this issue in the depth he plans to do, then I expect him to join us at DC someday! Join the dark side, David! ;-)

Christian-Detectors: $9.99 for a limited Time!

“O.K.! We have all had this problem, haven’t we? One neighbor claims to be a Christian, and goes to the church down the street. Another claims to be a Christian, too, but goes to a different church. People at work, at school, and in the media claiming to be a Christian.

“But Wait! A group will tell us that the other group is not a Christian. Even some within the same group will accuse others of not being a Christian. As we all know, Christians wear the same clothes, drive the same cars and have the same retirement plans as everyone else. Sadly, there was no way to tell the difference.

“Until Today!

“We have developed a patented two-part system by which you too can be confident and assured that you have accurately picked out who is a Christian and not. No more awkward confrontations at neighborhood parties. No more troubling questions, sidelong glances or embarrassing slip-ups.

“Image how much more confident you will be walking down the street, easily determining who is a Christian and who is not. You can chuckle when a person attempts to sell you something Christian, when clearly it is not. Expose the lies! Stun your friends and relatives with your pin-point accuracy!

“The first step in this amazing detector is to determine who loves God. As we all know, we can recognize a person that loves God is the one that loves one another and does what is right. (1 Jn. 4:21; 3:10)

“’But wait!’ you say, ‘We all know people that are loving others and do what is right. How can that be enough? Even people who do not claim to be Christians, such as Jews and Buddhists do that.’ And right you are! Up until now that is all we had to rely upon. And, as you very astutely notice, this left us with still the perpetual problem of lack of perception as to who the preserved protected are.

“Up ‘till today, we could only use rough tools by which to determine who the Christians were. Oh, sure, if they were convicted of murder, or drank too much, or beat their wives. Those were easily rejected. If they don’t give enough, or say the wrong words or go to the wrong movies—we could speak with confidence that they were not Christians.

“It is our unique combination of the traditional method and new technology that creates this patented way of determining Christians or not. See, we don’t stop at just the first step. No sirree! We then implement the second to determine with accuracy to the 100th decimal place as to Christianity factor!

“We have recently discovered that if a person loves God, all things work together for good. (Rom. 8:28) By joining this essential second step to the first, we are able to not only eliminate non-Christians by what a person does; but equally by how well their life is going!

“Think about how useful this becomes! Sure, your nephew seems to be living right, and displays some love for others. But is he unemployed? Uh-oh. By applying our Christian Detector, we can see that he is clearly not a Christian. Instantly you can ostracize him with reliance that it is warranted. He is not a Christian!

“Or, if a person is sick and dies—that didn’t work out so well, did it? Or a rocky marriage ending in divorce. A teenage child that becomes addicted to drugs. Don’t you see how easy this becomes? If their life is not going well, clearly it is because they do not love God.

“In fact, using this system, many people make it even easier for you! If they ask for prayer, it is obvious all things are not working together for good. You can stand up, look them straight in the eye and proclaim, ‘You need Jesus, you sinner!’ How can you turn away from that type of assured accusation, especially when we are only asking $9.99?

“Many politicians, and media personalities would pay more than twice this price for this type of self-confidence in making statements.

“’But wait,’ you say ‘Doesn’t that verse mean it may not be good, but it will work out for good in the end.’ How silly is that? Don’t all unemployed people who look for jobs eventually find them? Don’t all people who are divorced have good moments after? Don’t other sick people get well?

“Why, if it was only a situation where things ‘work out’ that hardly gives us any new information, now does it? Amazingly, things ‘work out’ for everybody! No, no, the only way in which our Christian Detector works, is if the promises in the Bible mean more than just fluff that applies to everybody.

“Do you realize what that means? It means the term ‘Christian’ could be applied to a whole variety of people! Because we ALL do right sometimes and do wrong at others. We ALL love sometimes, and sometimes not. We ALL have situations that turn out good, and some that do not. Why—our Christian Detector would come up with results that either everybody is a Christian or no one is.

“And how much confidence is there in THAT? Wouldn’t you much prefer to label others as they should be labeled? And that is the beauty of this two-part system. Rather than worry about how the promises are unique in any way, you can apply this method and come out with results that are backed by scientific research.

“For $9.99 you can not only determine who is a Christian and who is not, but you can do it with such assurance and research that the claim is indefensible by the other person.

“Act now and we will throw in, FREE, this rubber stamp with the letter “I” and a never-ending Red Ink Pad. With this, after determining who is not a Christian, you can stamp an “I” on their forehead for “Infidel” so that not only you, but any other person confronting this heathen will equally be confident.

“Remember, this is a limited time offer.

The previous announcement was a totally unpaid, unwarranted and unasked for advertisement. The owner of this blog neither endorses the use of, nor the implications of the product. The “Christian-detector” is for entertainment purposes only, and its use is limited for that purpose. The manufacturer limits the warranty to those who are verified as Christian post-mortem and positive proof of the same must be made prior to the claim, signed in triplicate by God, Satan and St. Peter.

[Final Note. Before I am accused of rotten interpretation, you should know that the inspiration from this blog entry came from a sermon on Familytalk (satellite radio) in which the person made this exact claim. That only those who “love God” are entitled to having all things work out together for good.]

Why I've Adopted My Control Set of Beliefs.

If I have a focus when it comes to debunking Christianity it is with control beliefs. Control beliefs are those beliefs that control how we view the evidence, and so my critique is generally philosophical and epistemological in nature. I'm interested in how we know what we know. How we view that which we know is the difference that makes all of the difference.

How we each look at the evidence is controlled by certain beliefs of ours. Since this is so, I want to know how to justify those control beliefs themselves. For me it's all about seeing things differently. It's not about more and more knowledge. It's about viewing what we know in a different light. I must share how I see things on a host of topics before I hit pay dirt where theists will consider how I see everything differently. And when that critical juncture happens, if it happens at all, they'll see how I see things, and maybe it'll make some sense. For them it will take place all at once, or not at all. It's basically an all or nothing happening.

How do we decide which approach, which bias, and which set of control beliefs are preferrable when looking at Christianity? That’s the biggest question of them all! Why? Because the set of control beliefs we start with when looking at the Bible is usually the same set we will come away with.

I think I have better reasons for starting with my control beliefs, presuppositions and biases. Let me briefly explain, once again. These are the reasons why I start with my skeptical control beliefs.

One) Sociological. I believe that the control beliefs a person adopts are the ones he or she picks up based on when and where he or she was born. Since that is overwhelmingly the case, I am right to be skeptical whenever I examine any religious set of beliefs, including Christianity.

Two) Philosophical. Miracles are by definition very improbable based upon natural law. In fact, the less probable a miracle is,then the more of a miracle it is. I have never seen a miracle, even when I was a Christian. Because of this I don’t think one happened in the past. Besides, a believer in the Christian miracles has a double burden of proof. For he must show that miracles are very unlikely, and at the very same time show that they are likely. What confirms that they are unlikely, discomfirms that they are likely, and vice versa. As a result there isn't any reasonable way to show that a miracle occurred at all, even if one did. That's right. Even if one actually did occur! So an additional problem becomes why God didn't know this, or why he doesn't do miracles for us to see today, especially if he desires that we believe in him?

Three) Biblical. When I look at the Bible itself, I see things in it that are barbaric and superstitious to me living in today's world. These things are obvious to me. So it's more likely to me that Biblical people were superstitious than that the stupendous miracles took place as recorded in the Bible. Furthermore, the God of the Bible seems barbaric to me, and such a God is not worthy of any worship even if he did exist. That's right, even if he did exist. The fact that Christians refuse to see this doesn't change anything, for it's also obvious, according to Sam Harris, that they "choose what is good in the Good Book." They "cherry-pick" the good out of the Bible, rather than dealing with what it actually says about their God.

Four) Historical. Christianity is an historical religion which says there are certain things that actually happened in history. I should believe that these things happened in history in order to be acceptable to God (like the incarnation and the resurrection). But if God chose to reveal himself in history, he chose a poor medium to do so. This is especially true when that history is a history or miracles. There are many historians who don't think we can be sure about much in the historical past. History is always subject to revision upon further evidence and findings. Historians must also be skeptical, because they have found many forgeries and frauds in the past.

Five) Scientific. Science has taught us to assume a natural explanation for every event based upon methodological naturalism. We who live in the modern world operate on this assumption ourselves everyday. This assumption is the foundation of modernity. We now know how babies are made and how to prevent them; we know why it rains; why nations win and lose wars; why trees fall; why most people get sick and how to cure most of them, etc. In previous centuries people either praised God for the good things that happened to them, or they wondered why he was angry when bad things happened. If they lost a war, there was sin in the camp. If someone got sick, it was because of sin in his or her life, and so on. Now we have scientific explanations for these things, and we all benefit from those who assumed there was a natural cause to everything we experience. The problem is that Christians believe in the claims of some ancient superstitious text as a fact, when they don’t do that with any other claim in today’s world. Christians themselves assume a natural explanation when they hear a noise in the night. They assume a natural explanation for a stillborn baby, or a train wreck, or an illness. If Christians were placed back in time with the same modern mindset they have today, they themselves would ask for evidence if someone claimed that an axe head floated, or a donkey talked. But because it’s in the Bible they adopt it unquestionably, and I find that to be holding to a double standard. Why do they operate on a double standard like this? Ancient people didn't even have a firm conception of natural law. For all they knew anything could happen in nature when acted upon by God, gods or goddesses. Ancient people just didn't have the required scientific understanding of natural laws we do today for them to question a miraculous story when they heard one. Scientifically literate people today are simply not that gullible to believe any such story. All of us ask whether an unusual event can be explained naturalistically, unlike them.

Six) Philosophical (again). The problem of evil. When we compare the world we see with all of its intense suffering, and we ask ourselves what kind of world we should expect to find if there is a good, omnipotent God, there is a huge disconnect. This is not the world we would expect if this God exists. Even though Christians attempt to explain intense suffering in this world, it is still not the world anyone should expect, if this God created it.

I call our modern ways of thinking the Achilles' heel of Christianity.

So, I have several really good reasons for starting out being skeptical when I examine the Christian evidences for belief. They are Sociological, Philosophical, Biblical, Historical and Scientific. I just don't see how Christians can refute any of these reasons for starting with a skeptical attitude, since they are all practically undeniable (and even obvious) to modern educated scientifically literate people. How much more is this so when these reasons are all taken together as a whole. So it is no surprise that I look at Christianity with the presumption of skepticism. And it is no surprise that I reject it.

One Year Anniversary!

On January 19th, 2006, I posted my first Blog entry here at DC. It’s been one year since the Blog has been in existence. With nearly 146,000 visits and many links to this Blog from other sites, it has gained a respectable audience. I originally didn’t plan on having anyone else here with me, but I saw some pretty sharp thinkers out there and started inviting them one by one to Blog with me, beginning with ex-believer. Then I continued inviting others who had a story that needed to be told. I just want to thank everyone who has ever been a team member here and for contributing his or her thoughts and stories, as well as to those who are presently on it. To those of you who visit and read what we say, love us or hate us, you’re still reading what we write. What did you do without us? ;-)

There is more to come this next year, so stay tuned.

A New Blog in Town.

Here's an interesting new Blog I was alerted to by the owner, Troy Waller, from the Peoples Republic of China. I don't have the time to fully check it out, but I'd be interested in any comments from those of you who do. It looks very good, but I just skimmed it.

Paul Kurtz on "What is Secular Humanism."

In this 56-minute-long video, Paul Kurtz, founder of the Council for Secular Humanism answers the question "What is Secular Humanism?" Explaining this robust system of ethics for those who are seeking alternatives to religion, Paul Kurtz shows how many people in the world agree with Secular Humanist values and ethics, but do not realize it. This is very good!