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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s worth looking at his main argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fallibility of the Human Experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is God a Bonehead, or What?

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

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

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

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

Jesus Was Not From the Lineage of David!

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

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

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

The Death of Denial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nebraska State Senator Sues God

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

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

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

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

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

He's seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty.

The 100% Challenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ditch That Is A Wall

Faith. That is what it all comes down to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasonable Doubt about The Atonement: Psychopathy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does God want from us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES

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

Biblical Scholarship and The Lord's Prayer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at the five stages of the gospel tradition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliolatry

John R.W. Stott once wrote "to be genuinely and authentically Christian, one must simply believe the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation."

As a minister, I once heard a woman give testimony that she was in a nursing home when it caught on fire. Her exit, along with several others, was blocked by fire. She tried to break the window, but could not find the strength to do it. She noticed her Bible on the nightstand, so she grabbed it, prayed and hit the window with it. The window - she says - exploded outward, and she and several of her co-residents were able to escape the inferno.

I know that - on this blogsite and many others - the issue of biblical authority and inerrancy (or infallibility) have been discussed many times. However, it is important to revisit time and time again that the whole of Christian relevance, authority and claims for regard are based on the legitimacy of biblical revelation. There is no other argument that the Christian faith can make, because historical evidence simply is not there for much of the development of Christian doctrine - including the existence of Jesus, the validity of miracles, and the ongoing "proof" of God among believers. It all hinges on the Bible.

In the last church I served, every person who became a member had to answer this question: "do you believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible?" If they answered no, they could not become a part of that church. I was amazed at how many people had to ask - "what is inerrancy", and even more asked "what is infallibility?"

The greatest deception taking place on this planet - IMHO - is the failure of the church (especially the evangelical church) to tell the truth to its constituency about the findings of modern biblical criticism and historic research. Most evangelical Christians (most Christians) have no idea of what the majority of biblical scholarship is concluding about the Bible...even in conservative and evangelical circles.

Instead, the church appeals to what I call "bibliolatry" - which is idolatry of the Bible and a crude, almost tribal belief in its magic powers. Note that this bibliolatry is as focused (if not more focused) on the bible itself than the information it contains. The Bible is viewed as a sacred book - a book with powers. Stories abound like the one I shared above about the woman in the nursing home - people who discern God's will by opening the pages and finding an answer (like the guy who proposed to a woman named Grace, because he prayed about a wife, opened the bible, and read "Grace be unto you"), or words from the bible delivered people from demonic vexation, or bibles being in placed in places where sin was prevalent (a pornographic bookstore) and the place closing business down within a week.

So, millions of people are encouraged to believe in a book, with no understanding of its origins, its cultural relevance, its historicity, and the research taking place in it currently...instead, they are only shown that it is like golden tablets come down from heaven, having the very power of God upon it.

The greatest testimony against Christian religion is the Bible itself.

Christopher Hitchens Recommends My Book.

You can find my book near the bottom here. Hey, I made the list! Thanks to Chris Knight-Griffin for pointing this out to me.

Hindu God 1, Scientists 0

An Army of Monkeys? Puhleese!

Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Hindu hardliners say the project will destroy what they say is a bridge built by Ram and his army of monkeys.

Scientists and archaeologists say the Ram Setu (Lord Ram's bridge) - or Adam's Bridge as it is sometimes called - is a natural formation of sand and stones.

In their report submitted to the court, the government and the Archaeological Survey of India questioned the belief, saying it was solely based on the Hindu mythological epic Ramayana.

They said there was no scientific evidence to prove that the events described in Ramayana ever took place or that the characters depicted in the epic were real.

Hindu activists say the bridge was built by Lord Ram's monkey army to travel to Sri Lanka and has religious significance.

Why does anyone want to destroy the bridge? To boost the economic and industrial development in the region of course!

The canal project proposes to link the Palk Strait with the Gulf of Mannar between India and Sri Lanka by dredging a canal through the shallow sea.

This is expected to provide a continuous navigable sea route around the Indian peninsula.

Once complete, the canal will reduce the travel time for ships by hundreds of miles and is expected to boost the economic and industrial development of the region.

Some people will believe anything won't they?
It's amazing what people will fight over. A naturally occurring bridge, or a stretch of land between the Mediterranean sea and Jordan, or invitro fertilization, or stem cell research……

The Nature of Deity

In my time commenting here, I have often found in a situation where I felt like I was playing the role of Heracles fighting the Lernaean Hydra without a torch. I would develop and present a devestating argument against one person's theology, only to have someone (or sometimes even the same commenter) claim "That's nice, but that argument doesn't apply to my theology." Once I turned against that person's theology, another commenter would make the same protest, all the while my arm grew tired from the labor of whacking off heads. Meanwhile, the immortal head of Liberal Christianity smirks, knowing that it is so malleable that any attempt to pin it down would be like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. So, for the sake of understanding one another better, I would like to ask two questions of everyone who wishes to join the discussions here.

My first question is to all posters, theist and atheist. According to you, what is the nature of deity? In other words, what are the characteristics absolutely required for something to be called a god, so that if I convinced you that a rock had these features, you would state "This rock is a god." This question is especially important for the atheist/agnostics to answer; how can we call upon the theists to provide evidence that god(s) exist if they don't know what we mean by god?

My second question is, of necessity, directed only at theists. Very few people here claim to know the full nature of God, but almost all of them claim to know something about God. So, I would like to know from every theist who wishes to join the discussion, what do you consider to be the defining characteristics of the god you pray to? What are the characteristics which, if even ONE OF THEM were missing, would cause you to no longer worship that god? This question is fundamental to the argument for theists, just as the first question is fundamental for atheists; how can you expect us to convince you that the existence of your god is improbable if you won't tell us what your god is?

I hope our commenters here will seriously consider these questions and answer them. While I don't think in most cases that this question will allow for the debate to be settled, it will at least help ensure that we are speaking the same language.

How Can Atheists be Subjected to Bigotry if They Can't be Identified?

Austin Cline makes some interesting observations about how the invisibility of atheists actually contributes to anti-atheist bigotry:

If anything, the invisibility of a group can contribute to their continued oppression on a number of levels. When people don't see members of this minority around them doing all of the same things as others, it's difficult to remember that they really do live much like everyone else. When members of this minority are invisible, their interests, needs, and problems can be ignored as well.

Viewed from the other side, the general invisibility of atheists makes it that much easier to remain invisible — to stay in the closet and thereby avoid even worse experiences at the hands of their loving, religious neighbors.

Ethnic and racial minorities rarely have any choice about appearing in public as who they really are, but others do — Jews, gays, and atheists are all groups in which many members have chosen to "pass" as members of the majority because it can make life easier. In some cases, light-skinned blacks learned to "pass" as whites in order to be treated with the basic dignities and decencies not normally accorded to other members of their race.

Atheists would be invisible enough without them actively hiding it, but hiding compounds the aforementioned problem of no one seeing atheists for who they really are: normal people who live normal and moral lives. Gay rights activists recognized this problem and it was a major impetus behind encouraging as many gay people as possible to come out of their closet and be open about their true sexual orientation.

Being quiet and inoffensive never provided any benefits to the gay community, never deceased hatred of gays, never educated people about gays, and never advanced the cause of equality a single iota. The same is true for atheists, though they are only now slowly coming to this realization. As with gays, atheists are being informed by helpful religious theists that if they just kept quiet and weren't so uncivil in their criticisms of religion or theism, then people wouldn't despise atheists so much — as if atheists were loved when they hid.

What religious theists fail to realize — probably because as part of the majority they have never had this experience — is that being told to be quiet is itself part of the system of anti-atheist bigotry which we have to deal with. Thus their "advice" isn't so much a means for helping us as it is for keeping us locked into the very system of unjust privilege which they so amply benefit from. How can atheists be subjected to bigotry if they can't be identified? The answer is simple: by ensuring that they don't want to be identified out of fear of the repercussions, and by advising them to keep quiet about who they are in the hopes that silence will buy a little security.

This is precisely the reason why atheists and agnostics must speak up and come out of the closet whenever possible. As I mentioned earlier, up to 1/4th of us could be either atheist or agnostic. There are potentially more of us than the second largest Christian denomination! There is voting power in this. There is safety in mumbers, too. But so long as atheists keep quiet we will be subjected to anti-atheist bigotry.

Okay, so what if you suffer some minor personal problems if you come out of the closet. At least you won't be burned alive at the stake like many heretics were in the past due to the Inquisition. Many of our freethinking forbearers suffered quite a bit for coming out of the closet. We are the recipients of their courage. The consequences keep getting smaller and smaller as skeptics come out in every generation. If enough of us do this there will be no consequences for doing so. And if you think like I do that the world will be a better place without religion, then by standing up and telling others what you think you could greatly contribute to society.

So I supported the Blasphemy Challenge of the Rational Response Squad, and I now support Dawkins' Out Campaign.

David Mills describes us as approaching the Golden Age of Atheism. If every skeptic would come out of the closet he would overwhelmingly be proved right! I do understand why some people cannot do this just yet. But I urge every freethinker, skeptic, agnostic and atheist who can do this to come out of the closet.

Hypernatural and Origins

Even as a Christian, I grew weary of the term "supernatural." I have lately come to refer to those phenomena that are beyond explanation and sometimes appear to be the result of prayer or providence of a divine being as "hypernatural". "Hyper" meaning above or beyond.
The concept of "spirit" continues to intrigue me as one who is becoming "rational." Is there a spiritual dimension? My study and reflection have led me to conclude that most of what we define as "spiritual" is actually "hypernatural" - that is, it is the natural operation of a material universe, but we have developed the ability to measure it or analyze it or even understand it. Our limited knowledge about the universe seems to support that there are realms of natural/material activity that are simply above and beyond our capacity for experience, understanding, or explanation. Those activities do not imply a divine agent...simply a profoundly complex and layered natural order.

Here is where I keep banging my head...and I hope the "DC" community can help with this: I was reading "The Skeptics Journal" recently and ran across this question - "why this, and not nothing?" It refers to the issue of origins...how does matter and energy exist? Forget how the universe got here, big bang and all. Where did the material that comprised the big bang come from? It seems most of the questions about origins do not go far enough in trying to address the question - "why existence?"

Is the mystery of existence what we ultimately call God - or the Divine? Is it a euphemism for "can't go no further in explaining this...here is where we throw our hands up and shout 'Lord'!"?

These are my musings for the day.

Should We Condemn Non-Believing Ministers?

I'm republishing this post. Some Christians don't understand why a non-believing minister stays in the ministry. See what I wrote about this here. Some doubt that it’s from a real person, but I assure you it is. I’m being asked why I did not condemn this minister, and I don't. Since there are several ex-ministers here, what are your thoughts?

The Slow Road to Reason

As a new contributor to this website, it is my turn to share my path away from theism. However, my story is somewhat less striking than those of most of the other posters here. Rather than a severe 180 from fervent fundamentalism, my story is less one of a titanic struggle to retain faith in the face of lost innocence, and more one of a slow, plodding slog from mainline Protestant theology to where I am now.


Like most children raised in a small town in the Southeast US, I initially became a Christian not due to a strong indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but rather because my family were Christians, my friends were Christian; heck, even my enemies were Christian (except for that one Thai kid; man, did I hate that kid). You couldn't swing a stick without hitting a pastor of some sort, and the most exotic game in town was the small Catholic church. My family were members of the local Methodist church, which was perhaps the most liberal church in town, but my parents did not attend. I did go to services and Sunday school from time to time with my grandmother, but I was not baptized as an infant because my mother wanted me to wait until I was old enough to make the decision myself. When I was seven, my family sent me to an evangelical summer camp. While there, my bunkmates began asking each other when they were "saved". Now, I was seven, in a church that did not emphasize a single moment of "saving". So, when I was asked, I said "what is saved?" At that moment, my bunkmates ran out and grabbed two of the counselors, who told me that I had to be saved right now, or else my eternal soul was in immediate danger. So, I gave myself to Jesus and asked to be saved. The counselors made a big deal out of it, and I will be honest, I had a serious emotional response (goosebumps, crying, the whole shebang). From that time on, I was "saved".

When I was a bit older, I began going to church every weekend. I joined the choir, and I began attending an adult Sunday school class taught by the pastor. I truly enjoyed this time, as I was involved in what was (at least for me) serious theological discussions. However, this is also when I was introduced to the truly difficult problems in standard Christian theology; the Problem of Evil, the incompatibility of infallible foreknowledge with libertarian free will, the internal and external inconsistencies of the Bible, etc. Most people were able to accept the usual answers of mystery and faith, but I remained unsatisfied. However, I was fully convinced that Christian theology could answer these questions if I just contemplated and looked for the answers.

I continued to struggle with these problems within Christianity until I was in my second year of college. I toyed with various ideas, from Calvinism to the idea of a God who is only omniscient about the past and present, but does not have perfect knowledge of the future. I read various theological solutions proposed to these problems; however, the answers usually created as many problems as they solved, not only logical and theological, but moral as well.

My first real experience with fundamentalism came when I was sixteen. My very serious girlfriend was a member of a fundamentalist Southern Baptist church. I attended church with her several times, and was apalled by the shallowness of the theology and the presentation of the religion. I discussed the major problems with various congregation members and the pastor, and the answer was always more faith. Not more knowledge, not more understanding, just more "shut up and clap harder." The deception from the pulpit, that Christianity offers trivial answers to difficult problems, invoked a physical disgust in me. I never toyed with the idea of joining fundamentalism again.

In college, I pursued a religious studies minor at the state's major public university. By this time, I was becoming more disillusioned with organized Christianity, but was still convinced that God did exist and that the Christian religion served as a good basic blueprint to him (although I had also pretty much concluded that Paul was a total ass). During my studies of comparative religion, I became what could be described as a Hindu Universalist or Inclusive Universalist; that is, I believed that many or all religions had some truth and some error in it, and each served as a separate but valid pathway to God. While this approach left God as a mystery, it still supported the search for God as a valid and worthy pursuit, and I pursued it, with Christianity as my main "path" due to my attraction to much of Jesus' teachings and my knowledge of the religion.

Eventually, I slowly lost the last kernels of my faith that a God exists, ceasing to self-identify as a deist about three years ago. The reason was quite simple; in all my searching through theology, not only of Christianity but other religions, I saw no reliable evidence of God. I saw lots of people saying God existed, but little evidence. Now this, in and of itself, is excusable in a religion. However, religion had also comitted what was, to me, the final mortal sin; it ceased doing anything for me. Religion had ceased being a comfort, but had at least been an interesting question. However, in the end, the only questions religion addresses are those to which it has no reliable, definite answers, just more opinions that have no greater basis than secular opinions.

I now self-identify as a weak agnostic/weak atheist. I do not claim to know if a God exists; however, I will not believe in one without evidence. If a person claims with no evidence that he knows the nature of God, I can state with confidence that he is probably wrong due solely to the laws of chance. However, I hold no opinion regarding theism/deism in general. I have lived happily this way for years, and I can confidently say that I am no less moral and no less happy than when I was a theist.

Unlike many excellent posters here, I am not nor have ever been a professional theologist or philosopher. I am a scientist by training and profession. As such, I may have a different style than others here. I became involved in the theist/non-theist debates during the height of the social and political push for creationism to be taught in the public school system that occurred a couple of years ago. Before that time, I was a quiet atheist; I thought that other people should wrestle with their faith without my input. However, during the social and political movement that was ID creationism, I realized that well-meaning people are very happy to lie, cheat, misrepresent evidence, and twist people's words to do what they felt was the "Will of God". So long as theists were willing to lie to subvert science, I was unwilling to "live and let live." So, I began speaking out against creationism, which led to speaking about why I was not a fundamentalist, which has now led to speaking about rationalism and free-thinking. I hope that I am able to add constructively to the discussion, and look forward to interacting with those here who honestly seek the truth.

Converting to Reason

Being new to this blogsite, I was invited to give my "deconversion" story. The truth is, I think I was more "converted" than "deconverted" - or maybe just came out of the closet.

I was a minister for over 25 years, very serious about thoughtful Christianity, a graduate of Emory University with undergrad study in psychology and grad study in religion/theology. Studied anthropology and mythology along the way, because I was fascinated with origins, and because I had a lingering suspicion even in those days that much of what I believed was probably myth. I was a person who chose to believe in the face of dogged unbelief. I struggled with intellectual concerns with Christianity from the day I was "born again" - but my conversion experience was so emotionally gratifying and gave me such acceptance in a tight-knit community that I chose to turn off or "closet" my reasonable objections and simply believe the unbelievable.

And, that is one of the reasons I actually "deconverted" or came out of the closet...I grew tired, after 25 years - of seeing emotion and acceptance be awarded to the converted for choosing to believe something that has no basis in reality. I could no longer live with my own sense of compromised integrity and intellectual dishonesty.

I always questioned my faith, but Christianity and ministry gave me a place, an identity, and frankly a salary, so the questions only took me to a place of constant discontent. I was important and successful in my chosen community because I was a great speaker, a brilliant counselor, and a charming personality. I had exploited the pay-off to my conversion to its maximum effect. But in my moments of reflection I wrestled - not with how to better share Jesus with my flock - but with the nagging inconsistencies of the gospel, the ragged edges of religion and the fact that I really did not believe what I said I believed.

I think the power of religion is that it promises so much, and keeps people "grateful" by keeping them guilty...and withholding emotional validation and acceptance when one strays. Most people I know who are "in faith" are people who have suspended their intellect and accept the package because with it comes occasional emotional validation and acceptance by a group of people. Very few are there because of intellectual reasoning. I hope to meet some on this blogsite.

I am also a believer in evidential consequence. Which means, most of what we know happens because we observe a consequence...a ripple in a pond, thunder after lightning. We understand this as a consequence, even from the earliest age - "mommy, why is the sky blue?" We move backward, examining evidence (which are also prior consequences) until we get to the point of origin...the original action. The rock thrown in the pond, the heated air after a lightning strike. Thus, we learn, and we also put into practice the scientific method.

After 25 years in the organized religious institution, I was nearly asphyxiated due to "lack of evidence" behind the consequence. (What???) I mean - I could no longer justify the lack of genuine belief I saw demonstrated in so-called "believers". The church does not enable inquiry, it shuts it off by pontification and by studying over and over again only the preordained and pre-approved texts. And so we never got anywhere, and we never examined what we said we believed...we just said we believed it and moved on.

When the ripple in the pond is not a ripple, and there is no lightning behind the thunder...then you know it is time to move out and move on.

I have since acquired a more expansive view of "debunking Christianity." Things like: lack of historic evidence, internal inconsistencies in the authoritative document (the Bible - duh!), no sound arguments of proof, being honest about mythological and anthropological origins of the gospel narratives (and indeed the entire Bible, both Old and New Testament).

But, the truth is, I converted - not deconverted. I converted to intellectual honesty. I came out of the closet and admitted...I don't believe this, and I have reasons.

I am a truly happy, born-again and uncloseted agnostic.

Take me on...take on me!

The Young Man's Guide to Curing Homosexuality

If there’s one thing you can be assured of from the Holy Scriptures, it is that God hates fags. In both Old and New Testaments, homos have judgment coming to them straight from the throne of God (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; I Corinthians 6:9; Romans 1:18-22)! You don’t want to be a homo because you don’t want to burn in Hell, but you’re having sexual feelings for people of the same sex. What do you do?

Did God make you a homosexual? No sir, he did not, anymore than he made a town drunk a town drunk. You have a thirst for the erotic emissions from those of the same sex, but trust the word of the Lord when he assures you that the names you’ll be calling out in the darkness of Gehenna will not belong to some strapping young dude you met at The Man Hole. And the claw marks on your back? Those won’t be from him either!

Below are seven surefire principles on how to beat homosexuality and stroll right through the golden gates of heaven with Jesus and the godly gang! Take heart, young man! You’ve pulled yourself away from watching Brokeback Mountain long enough to read this, so there’s hope for you yet!

First, realize that you are sick: Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Your parents were right and their parents before them were right; homosexuals are ill. You are sicker than a needle-sharing transient on a San Francisco elementary school playground, and Hell’s mouth is wide-open, just waiting to receive you—not unlike your mouth is open when you go to slurp on the ricardos of strangers with military cuts and washboard abs whom you meet answering ads in the “Anything Goes” section of the Village Voice Newspaper! That old devil got a hold of you when you were growing up and gave you an identity crisis, which made you attracted to members of the same sex. So isn’t it about time you get the prescription medicine from Jesus to cure your illness! Amen?!

Thank God for his mercy: The Almighty has cooled off since the Old Testament. It used to be that Jesus’ daddy was in power way back when. If it were up to him, he’d have killed your sorry, gay ass and been done with it already. But thanks be to God for Jesus Christ his son, who is more merciful and has convinced his papa to give queer-baits like you another shot at heaven.

Pray to Jesus and ask him for strength: This is an important step. Go to Jesus in prayer and ask for the conviction to overcome the raging demon inside you that causes you to lust for strange flesh. But I must warn you; just because Jesus was portrayed as a sissy-looking man in paintings of him in the middle ages doesn’t mean he looked that way! We now have it on good authority that Jesus was a big, hunky man, and so there may be the temptation for gay-wads like yourself to lust after him; he did, after all, rub saliva and mud on the body of another man to give him back his sight (John 9:6), but Jesus is not a mud-wrestling sex object! Jesus is no kink! He is tough and will damn you to Hell if you so much as think of lusting upon him!

Stay away from homosexual temptations: The Lord warned us to remind him not to lead us in the way of temptation, but that means we’ve got to do our part not to walk in it! So stay away from liberals and sexual perverts, especially modern hippies and eurotrash, and anyone who spends a lot of time using cell phone cameras and wears black turtleneck shirts—like the Starbucks crowd, for instance. They are the most abominable faggots around. Be sure and stay away from gyms. Sweat glistening off big, bulging biceps is not what you need to see. Don’t watch TV shows like Will & Grace that glorify nanny-boyism. Also, don’t dare get involved in the fashion industry! To safeguard your soul, learn to detect lisps and anyone who seems to be trying to cover them up. Don’t forget that men who have an excessive number of female friends might be trying to slip under your “gaydar” and right into your bed, and before you know it, you’ll be swimming in satin sheets with a well-endowed piece of man-meat behind you.

Before I get off (No, I don’t mean that, you queer! It’s just a play on words!) this point, it should go without saying that every converting homosexual is required by God (and preferably, their own consciences!) to discard old items that led or might lead to sinful acts…naughty toys, same-sex posters of hotties on your walls, posters of the gay comedian Ant, rainbow coalition bracelets, anything in the color pink, jars of Vaseline, etc. Hot dogs and sausages are off limits to you, as are bananas and enchiladas (and I know I don't have to explain to you why).

Spend more time around grandma and grandpa and the church crowd: Grandma and grandpa new best! That’s why their generation was so lovely and yours is going to Hell in a hand basket. Preacher Hank and churchmen are the best influence you could have. Hang out with them long enough and it’s a darn-near certainty that you’ll find it easier to hate the homo crowd you once ran with. And when trying to find anti-gay friends in your neighborhood, it is a good idea to be looking for someone with a gun rack in their truck.

And of course, I would be doing you a great disservice by not mentioning how necessary it is to remember great Bible characters who fought homosexuality and are thus excellent examples for you to follow; there was righteous Lot (Genesis 19; 2 Peter 2:7-8) who resisted successfully the flaming influences from the gay community of his time, and there was King Josiah, who tore down the houses of the sodomites and vanquished them from the land (II Kings 23:7).

One more thing; it is a common ploy for sissies and sissy sympathizers to scream discrimination and accuse God-fearing Christians of harassing them. Don’t be deterred by this; when these whining wussies find out what Jesus is going to do to them in Hell, they’ll be BEGGING to be back here on earth, getting mocked by us again, with our usual assortment of hot mayonnaise jokes!

Challenge yourself to become straight and actively anti-gay (emphasis on the word “actively!”): March in an anti-gay rally and protest. Wear “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” t-shirts (loose-fitting only, you fruit!), and put anti-gay bumper stickers on your car. When you do see a gay couple in public, go up to them and call them out: “You are an abomination to the Lord, queer! Repent while there is still time!” After rebuking them in the name of the Lord, get away from them so that you won’t be tempted to apologize and exchange phone numbers.

As an ex-queer, remember all the wrong that you have done and the hurt you caused your parents for making them put up with your gay indecency for so long. It’s time to make reconciliation! Get married (to some girl, any girl) as quickly as possible and have kids. You owe your parents that much. Bring a girl home, and even if you aren’t attracted to her, marry her just for appearance’s sake. That’s the least you can do to make mom and dad proud. Having the commitment of being married will be just one more safeguard against your ever falling back into sodomy. The good Lord would rather you wake up each morning next to a loveless hag with matching rings than to be led into the chambers of Hell by a firm-bodied Adonis.

Put away the iniquity forever: This is the last step in your reformation from an unfaithful fag to a born again believer. Here is what you do; go to the store and buy some clay and make the clay into an erect penis facing upwards. Make it at least one foot high so that you will notice it, and make it look real; take some time with it, sculpt it and shape it well; give it testicles too. Then harden it in the oven, and when it is done cooking, leave it in your living room or whatever room you frequent most. Every time you have a temptation for someone of the same sex, write the temptation down on a sticky note (no, not that kind of sticky, you fudge-packer!) and attach it to the clay penis. When the week expires, lay hands on the penis and pray; “Lord, on this phallic image of evil I lay all of my homosexuality. As it is destroyed, let my sins be destroyed forever, along with the temptations.” Then, take a baseball bat and smash the hard penis to pieces. You’re done! You finished the object lesson that helped to reinforce that you are now converted to the Lord and freed from sin!

If after this you are still experiencing homosexual temptations, then know that you could be the dreaded antichrist who is to come. It is predicted that he will also be gay (Daniel 11:37). If you are not the antichrist, you are still someone who was obviously insincere in following one or more of the steps we covered above. In that case, I hope you enjoy Hell!

(JH)

Dawkin's Out Campaign

Dawkins is asking people to come out and let others know you are an atheist, and I add, agnostic. I'm in favor of nonbelievers coming out of the closet, but this doesn't mean you have to commercialize it like he has done. I do understand if some non-believers cannot do it at this time in their lives. But if you can do this, I too encourage it. See link

Evil and Evolution Debate:Draper v. Plantinga

This is a debate hosted by the Secular Web between two important philosophers that you shouldn't miss. I will be reading through it in the coming days. Here's Draper's introduction. You can click on the Table of Contents or proceed to the debate itself from there.

Freshmen College Students Are Staying Away From Religion in Record Numbers!

According to a survey by the Higher Education Research Institute, students entering college are staying away from religion in record numbers. Nineteen percent have no religious preference, and more than 23 percent have not attended a religious service in the last year—a new high in the thirty-nine-year history of the survey. The survey also asked about parents’ religion. Almost 15 percent of the students’ fathers have no religious preference (at least according to their children), compared to 10 percent of mothers. The generational lag tells an interesting story. Fathers now are at the level of nonpreference displayed by male students in 1998; mothers are at the level of female students in 1997.

Thanks to Ed Babinski for pointing this out.

No More Religious Appeasement!