The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman, Christian Objections (with Responses)

Three objections that I've heard concerning Pullman's "Golden Compass" (the movie), and "His Dark Materials" trilogy:

OBJECTION #1: Catholics object to the author's use of the phrase, "The Magisterium"

OBJECTION #2: Protestants object to the way John Calvin is portrayed in the novels as being connected with "children" being "killed."

OBJECTION #3: Protestants and Catholics both object to the way "Original Sin" is portrayed as somehow being connected with adolescent sexual awakening.

OBJECTION #1: Catholics object to the author's use of the phrase, "The Magisterium" to depict the governing body on his alternate earth. According to Catholics using such a term is an affront to "The Magisterium" which is defined today as the living teaching authority of the Catholic church. So using such a term to depict the controlling forces of a totalitarian society in Pullman's fiction is a form of bigotry and prejudice.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION #1: Even the late Pope John Paul II admitted that the Catholic church had a lot to apologize for over the centuries, including a thirst for political influence, wealth, power, totalitarian-like teachings and activities. Hence the late Pope John Paul II set up a commission to tally up the church's questionable teachings and misdeeds over the centuries, though it remains doubtful that they will ever formally complete such a task. But if anyone wishes to study the question of totalitarianism and the Bible and the church fathers, then a prime example of the type of reasoning employed can be found in

De Laicis — Saint Robert Bellarmine's Treatise on Civil Government by Saint Robert Bellarmine Doctor of the Universal Church.

Just read chapters 18-22:
The Defense of Religion Pertains to the Political Magistracy
It is not Possible for Catholics to be Reconciled with Heretics
The Books of Heretics Should Be Abolished
Can Heretics Condemned by the Church Be Punished with Temporal Penalties and even with Death
The Solution of Difficulties

Bellarmine covers a host of questions any Christian might ask pertaining to how one can interpret the Bible and the church fathers and arrive at something akin to totalitarianism.

OBJECTION #2: Protestants object to the way John Calvin is portrayed in the novels as being connected with "children" being "killed."

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION #2: True, the historical John Calvin in our cosmos was not known for killing children willy nilly. And even in Pullman's fiction there is a reason or threat that the Magisterium finds compelling enough to make them conduct experiments on children that lead sometimes to their deaths--though killing the children is not the object of such experiments which are attempts to find a way to avoid people attracting "dust."

On the other hand, the historical John Calvin did teach that the disciplining of unruly children was necessary, even unto death. Some modern day Calvinists agree, even unto the death penalty for disobedient children in their mid-teens. See the materials below, beginning with verses from the O.T. that Calvin himself is known to have cited and expounded upon:

He that strikes his father or his mother shall die the death.
-Exodus 21:15

He that curses his father or his mother shall die the death.
-Exodus 21:17

If any man has a son that is stubborn and disobedient, which will not hearken unto the voice of his father, nor the voice of his mother, and they have chastened him [The Hebrew word for “chasten” means literally “chasten with blows.”], and he would not obey them, Then shall his father and his mother take him, and bring him out unto the Elders of his city, and unto the gate of the place where he dwells, And shall say unto the Elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and disobedient, and he will not obey our admonition; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. Then all the men of the city shall stone him with stones unto death: so thou shalt take away evil from among you, that all Israel may hear and fear.
-Deuteronomy 21:18-21

HOW CHILDREN WERE TREATED AT THE HEIGHT OF CALVINISM IN GENEVA

In 1563, a girl named Genon Bougy, who had insulted her mother by calling her "japa," was condemned to three days in prison on bread and water, and she had to make a public apology after worship services. In 1566, Damian Mesnier, a child from the village of Genthod, for insulting his mother by calling her "diablesse, hérège, larronne" and by throwing stones at her, was whipped in public and then hanged from the gallows with the rope passed under his arms, as a sign of the death he had deserved, but which was spared him because of his youth. Philippe Deville was beheaded in1568 for having beaten his father and step-mother. Four years later, a 16-year-old child tried to strike his mother, and was also condemned to death; but the sentence was reduced in light of his young age, and he was only banished, after being whipped in public with a rope around his neck. [SOURCE: Jean Picot [Professeur d'histoire dans la faculte des lettres de l'Academie de cette ville] Histoire de Geneve, Tome Second (Published in Geneva, i.e., A Geneve, Chez Manget et Cherbuliez, Impreimeurs-Libr. 1811) p. 264]

“GIRL” (?) BEHEADED

A child was whipped for calling his mother a thief and a she-devil (diabless). A girl was beheaded for striking her parents, to vindicate the dignity of the fifth commandment. [SOURCE: Philip Schaff [Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New York] Modern Christianity: The Swiss Reformation = Vol. VIII of History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmanns, third edition revised, 1910) -- Schaff does not footnote the “beheading” incident, though he does provide on that page and the next a few footnotes regarding other incidents of prohibitions and their penalties in Geneva. He also lists the sources he consulted when writing his book (sources are listed at the beginning of each section). In this case, judging by nearby footnotes and by his source list for that particular section, he most likely obtained his information from either the Registers of the Council of Geneva, or, “Amedee Roget: L’eglise et l’etat a Geneve du vivant de Calvin. Etude d’histoire politico-ecclesiastique, published in Geneve, 1867 (pp. 92). Compare also his Histoire du people de Geneve depuis la reforme jusqu’a l’escalade (1536-1602), 1870-1883, 7 vols.”]

[Picot and Schaff do not agree on the gender of the beheaded child, and my first source, Dr. Henry, only mentions that it was a “child,” not specifying its gender. Picot’s History of Geneva provides the most complete information concerning the incident, including the child’s name and the date of the beheading. The archives of Geneva are vast and include not only the Registers of the Council and the Registers of the Consistory, but many other records as well (that the Calvin scholar, Robert Kingdon, lists by category in Vol. 1 of his English translation of the Registers of the Consistory). Though massive, the Genevan archives could probably be searched by focusing on the year of the beheading and the child’s name that Picot has given, and they could probably supply more information, such as the child’s age when s/he was beheaded. -- E.T.B.]

CALVIN’S TEACHING ON THE EXECUTION OF REBELLIOUS CHILDREN FROM CALVIN’S DAY TO OUR OWN

The same year that the Libertines were overthrown (1555) and pro-Calvinists ruled Geneva, Calvin preached on the execution of rebellious children in a sermon that advocated it (in order to “remove the evil from among you” as it stated in Deuteronomy). The sermon was recorded (by a secretary in shorthand) and later published and is even available today in English on the internet at a site run by Theonomist Evangelical Christians who are some of Calvin’s biggest modern day admirers. In his sermon Calvin cited verses from the Bible that taught that parents should both love and discipline their children, advice that you would normally hear in any sermon or read in a Parenting magazine today, with one crucial difference of course, the added Biblical necessity of having some disobedient, parent-dishonoring, rebellious children executed “to remove the evil from among you.”

Also during the 1550s many editions of French Bibles were printed in Geneva that contained notes based on Calvin’s teachings. In 1560 an English translation of the Bible was published in Geneva, the famous “Geneva Bible.” Like the earlier French Bibles it featured notes that reflected the teachings of Calvin and Calvinism. Each book in the Geneva Bible was preceded by an opening “argument” -- for instance the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy were preceded by “arguments” that said the laws revealed to Moses were “temporal and civil ordinances,” “necessary for a commonweal,” and to “govern” His “Church.” And a note in the Geneva Bible, concerning the command in Deuteronomy to execute rebellious children, added: “Which death was also appointed for blasphemers and idolaters: so that to disobey the parents is most horrible.”

Robert Kingdon [a modern day Calvin scholar who not only edited the Registers of the Consistory of Geneva, but also wrote a book about Adultery in Calvin’s Geneva], noted that during the early 1560s: “We find in the surviving dossiers of Genevan criminal trials a cluster of several cases of adultery punished with the death penalty in 1560 and 1561. That was when the Calvinist Reformation was at its peak... Calvin too, was at the peak of his career, with a new and definitive edition of his masterwork, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, just off the [Genevan] press.”

In 1563, Calvin’s Commentary on the Five Books of Moses was also published in Geneva and it reiterated what he had previously taught in his sermons in 1555 concerning the necessity of following God’s rules of discipline and the necessity of magistrates to obey and enforce Biblical laws, including the execution of rebellious children. It was soon after that when the harsh public disciplinary actions toward children took place. Moreover, during those same years, a string of witches were killed (not a one was banished, all executed, one right on the spot), several adulterers were executed, and a few people even committed suicide rather than face the Consistory. It was Calvinism in its most heightened state of belief and triumph.

In January of 1998 the Rev. William Einwechter composed an article titled, “Stoning Disobedient Children,” that was published in Chalcedon Report. The Reverend’s article raised some eyebrows in the world of “church and state news” since it advocated the execution of rebellious children who were “in their middle teens [15-17?] or older.” The Reverend responded to his critics in a second article. Both of his articles can be googled easily since they are posted at various websites. I emailed the Reverend, asking him why he chose the “mid-teens” as a cut off point for execution when Exodus mentions executing children twice, once for “cursing” their parents, and once for “striking” their parents, but in neither case does it specify the “age” of “executable” children. In fact in some places the Bible says God himself killed, or commanded his people to execute, infants and pregnant women. Therefore, the “age” of a child does not appear to have played a very large factor when it came to the necessity of removing “evil” from the sight of God:

Their fruit shalt Thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men.
- Psalm 21:10

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born... let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
- Psalm 58:3,8

As for Israel, their glory shall fly away like a bird, and from the womb, and from the conception... Give them, O Lord: what will Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts... they shall bear no fruit...
- Hosea 9:11-16

Every living thing on the earth was drowned [which no doubt included pregnant women and babies]... Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
- Genesis 7:23

Thus saith the LORD... Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
- 1 Samuel 15:3

Joshua destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD commanded.
- Joshua 10:40

The LORD delivered them before us; and we destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones.
- Deuteronomy 2:33-34

Kill every male among the little ones.
- Numbers 31:17

The wind of the LORD shall come up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and... Samaria shall become desolate... they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
- Hosea 13:15-16

With thee will I [the LORD] break in pieces the young man and the maid.
- Jeremiah 51:22

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
- Psalm 137:9

I added in my email to Rev. Einwechter that Calvinist Christians whose “fear of God” ran deep could cite scriptures like those above and argue for executing rebellious children of a far younger age than he suggested in his article. Apparently the Reverend did not wish to argue the question of “age” any further with me, since he never replied to the second email I sent him.

This subject also brings to mind the related question of the Bible’s rules for the disciplining of children:

Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.
- Proverbs 19:18 (The Hebrew word for “chasten” means literally “chasten with blows.”)

The blueness of a wound cleanses away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly.
- Proverbs 20:30 (The Hebrew word translated “stripes” means “beating.”)

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beats him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from Sheol.
- Proverbs 23:13-14

As a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee (with blows).
- Deuteronomy 8:5

For whom the Lord loves he chasteneth, and scourges every son whom he receives.
- Hebrews 12:6 (The Greek word translated “chasteneth,” also means “beating.”)


OBJECTION #3: Protestants and Catholics both object to the way "Original Sin" is portrayed as somehow being connected with adolescent sexual awakening.

REPLY TO OBJECTION #3: In Pullman's trilogy (His Dark Materials) "dust" is a powerful force, which causes the alethiometer to operate, flows around the Aurora Borealis, passes between parallel universes, and adheres to adult humans (but not to animals and not to juveniles whose daemons have not yet settled into final form). And because it is intimately connected to the changes that take place at puberty, which in the eyes of the Church (in Lyra’s world) are a manifestation of Original Sin, it is seen by the Church and its Oblation Board as evil; therefore they want to find a way to protect humans from its actions.

“Dust is the embodiment of either Original Sin or the creative energy of humankind, which may be the same thing in Pullman's world.” (Jacobs)

“Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself.” (Pullman, The Subtle Knife)

In "His Dark Materials" trilogy Pullman's interpretation of the garden of Eden tale is that after eating the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve were awakened to full consciousness, curiosity, including sexual curiosity. Pullman's explanation in the story is that "dust" is drawn to humans at the point where childhood turns into early-adulthood/adolesence, and that the moment of awakening [which some Protestants might call the "age of accountability"] is a sort of replay of the awakening of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden when "their eyes were opened," and they gained "knowledge."

For instance In the Genesis story the immediate consequence of eating from the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" was their awareness of being "naked," and the first action reported after the expulsion from the garden is Adam's "knowing" Eve
(Genesis 4:1).

[Explanatory note in case someone brings up the "be fruitful and multiply" command in Genesis chapter 1 and uses it to argue that Adam and Eve had sex in Eden before they sinned, and thus sexual awakening had nothing to do with original sin. Genesis 1 which contains the "be fruitful" command is a story that contains evidence of later concerns, even ideas absorbed during the Babylonian exile, and it is more fully monotheistic as well, a later development in Israelite religion. Thus Genesis 1 is a later tale, so whatever it may say about God commanding the first man and woman to "be fruitful and multiply" that appears to be a later embellishment. While the earlier creation story found in Genesis 2-4 has God walking naked in the garden with Adam and Eve who are like children running around naked and doing some gardening--though the garden watered itself it was said from rising mists--and then the couple ate of the forbidden fruit (attaining knowledge--a more adult and mature view of things for the first time) and their eyes were opened and they hide their nakedness in shame and begat children after leaving the garden. Of course even in the later tale of the creation of man and women in which they are commanded to "be fruitful" the metaphor of "fruit" is employed and harkens back to ancient Near Eastern sexual metaphors, as pointed out by Dr. Ronald A. Veenker (Post-doctoral Fellow, Hebrew Union College-Jewish lnstitute of Religion, Rabbinic Literature (Tannaitic Midrash), Cantillation of Torah, Sumerian Grammar and Syntax, 1977), in his paper presented at The Society of Biblical Literature in 1993, Forbidden Fruit: Ancient Near Eastern Sexual Metaphors.

As for verses in the Bible and teachings of theologians and monks in the early church regarding celibacy as an extremely important means for attaining holiness, pleasing God and being in His presence, below are examples. Keep in mind while reading these examples that just because the author of the Song of Songs praised “well favored” women with “breasts like towers,” is no reason to think “the Lord” finds “favor” with them. He’s into virginity--into it deeper than any Protestant ever imagined. Take the following heavenly scene:

I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne [of the Lord]...and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they that were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.
-Revelation 14: 2-4

Why is it important that the 144,000 male harpists not be “defiled” with women? Likewise, why did Moses feel it was important for Israelite men to “come not at their wives” before “meeting the Lord?” (Exodus 19:15,17) What exactly is so bad about having a little nookie before meeting the Lord?

And why did Paul teach: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman [sexually]… Are you loosed from a wife? seek not a wife… The time is short: it remains that they that have wives be as though they had none.” (1 Cor. 7) And finally, why did Jesus say, “Some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven?” (Mat. 19:12) What’s the lesson behind all this?

There appears to have been some ancient taboo about a woman “spiritually defiling” a man by having sex with him. (I wonder if a single Protestant Christian still believes this or worries about any such biblical lessons? Do they “come not at their wives” before traveling to the annual Southern Baptist Convention? I doubt it.)

FURTHER TEACHINGS FROM PAUL AND OTHER EARLY THEOLOGIANS AND MONKS

It is good for a man not to touch a woman [sexually]… For I would that all men were even as I myself… I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I… But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn… I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be… Are you loosed from a wife? seek not a wife… The time is short: it remains that they that have wives be as though they had none… He that is unmarried cares for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married cares for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married cares for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit… that you may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
-1 Corinthians 7:1,7,8-9,26-27,29,32-35

In the first times, it was the duty to use marriage… chiefly for the propagation of the human race. But now, in order to enter upon holy and pure fellowship… they who wish to contract marriage for the sake of children, are to be admonished, that they use rather the larger good of continence. But I am aware of some that murmur, “What if all men should abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist?” Would that all would… Much more speedily would the City of God be filled, and the end of the world hastened. For what else does the Apostle Paul exhort to, when he says, “I would that all were as myself;” or in that passage, “But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remains that both they who have wives, be as though not having: and they who weep, as though not weeping: and they who rejoice, as though not rejoicing: and they who buy, as though not buying: and they who use this world as though they use it not. For the form of this world is passing away.” (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 29-31) [SOURCE: Saint Augustine (c. 354-430), On the Good of Marriage, Sections 9-10]

In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wife's breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wife's virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings. [SOURCE: Saint Augustine, The City of God, Book14, Chapter 26]

Nothing so casts down the manly mind from its height as the fondling of women and those bodily contacts that belong to the married state. [SOURCE: Augustine, De Trinitate]

I am aware that some have laid it down that virgins of Christ must not bathe with eunuchs or married women, because the former still have the minds of men and the latter may present the ugly spectacle of swollen [pregnant] bellies. For my part I say that mature girls must not bathe at all, because they ought to blush to see themselves naked.
- Saint Jerome (c. 342-420)

Saint Jerome conquered his carnal visions of dancing maidens by throwing himself in tears before a crucifix, beating his breast with a stone, and fleeing into the desert.
- John Dollison, Pope-Pourri

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux threw himself into half-frozen ponds to free himself from sexual temptation. He also wrote lengthy commentaries on the Bible’s Song of Songs (also called “The Song of Solomon”) “to prove it was not about sex.”

Edward T. Babinski 12/5/2007

Why Can't Christians Agree on Doctrine?

Michael Patton tries to answer this question here. My comment below his post offers a better explanation for why they disagree, and there's even more to it than what I said...

Michael, the real reason why other Christians don’t agree with you is because of the nature of a history itself along with the fact that God purportedly revealed himself in the ancient past. My argument is that if God did reveal himself, he chose a poor medium (history) and a poor era (the ancient past) to do so, and that makes an omniscient God look stupid (sorry).

We have a hard enough time understanding one another living in today’s world. We disagree about everything and we are constantly correcting misunderstandings about what we have said. So it stands to reason that this is compounded when we try to understand the literature of the ancient past. This is just obvious to me.

Of course, if God wanted to communicate more clearly and he could foresee that Southern slavery and witch hunts would result because he wasn’t clear, he could’ve said “Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, trade or beat slaves of any kind,” and said it often enough that believers could not misunderstand. He could’ve done the same with witch hunts and avoided the Galileo debacle as well. Genesis 1 could’ve started out by stating more clearly the nature of creation too. [If you’d like, I could show you how an omniscient God could’ve communicated better, and I only have an IQ of 160, again, sorry].

What’s the alternative? For God to reveal himself today on the great issues that divide the church. How could he do this? Through miracles and the church’s recognition of a 14th Apostle “like unto Paul.” In the meantime the disunity of the church speaks against the existence of the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit who has not done his job down through the centuries, and therefore provides evidence the Christian faith is a delusion, again, sorry.

How the New Testament Authors Created Many of Jesus’ Words and Actions

For this Post, I want to focus on two pericopes (group of verses) to bolster my thesis.

The first is taken form “The Triumphal Entry” where Jesus enters Jerusalem at Passover as recorded in Matthew 21:1-7. Since Jesus was long dead when the Synoptic account of Matthew was composed (after 70 CE or over 40 years after the Crucifixion (The Inter national Critical Commentary: Matthew, by Dale Allison and W. D. Davies, vol. I; 1988)) this Gospel, which is more Jewish than Mark and Luke, feels the need to use a proof text to convince Jews and God fearing Greeks (Gentiles who attended the synagogue, but were uncircumcised) that Jesus was the Messiah. To do this, Matthew quotes a section from Zechariah 9:9 (= Matt. 21:5) and builds his whole Synoptic account around it.

However, in doing so, the editor of Matthew fails to understand ancient Semitic Parallelisms found in Wisdom literature written in early Akkadian through Late Hebrew where a verse is citied and then the very same verse is restated again in another way. Example here is the Book of Proverbs in the Hebrew Bible. Proverbs 4:20 “My son give attention to my words; Incline your ear to my sayings.” This is addressed to only one son, not two.

By not understanding the Semitic semantics, Matthew has Jesus riding on 2 animals at once (talk about a miracle!). The stage is set in 21: 2-3 and carried out in 21: 7 (Compare Mark 11 1-7 = Luke 19: 28-35 who have it correct since they don’t build their story around a proof text).

The second problematic pericope is found in Matthew 18:15-18 in the discipline of an unrepentant brother. Jesus says “…go to him and reprove him…” (15). If he still does not repent, take two more with you “…by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.” (16). and concludes in verse 17: “And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (ekklesia); and if he refuses to listen even to the church (ekklesia), let him be to you as a Gentile (ethnikos) and a tax-gatherer.”

The word church (ekklesia) only occurs three times in the four Gospels and all three times in Matthew (twice here and one with Peter) and all three times scholars feel it has been interpolated into the text.

It is a fact that Jesus as a Jew who attended the synagogue and that the lingua franca of Jesus was Aramaic which had no word for church (“church” is a Greek term). So why is it that Jesus talking about “the church” and giving church discipline on how unrepentant members should be dealt with?

In addressing this issue in 1989, a conservative Presbyterian minister told me: “You have to understand the Christology of Jesus. He, being God in flesh, was omniscient (Having total knowledge) and thus He knew the Church was coming and wanted to advise it accordingly.”

I then asked the Minister that if Jesus was indeed omniscient and knew the church was coming, than why did He not also know that Gentiles would be allowed into the early church (the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15) by the Apostle to the Gentiles: Paul and that Gentiles would out number Jewish Christians?

Realized that he had used an absolute attribute of God (omniscient) to get him out of the first bind with the word “church”, only to end in a divine contradiction in Acts 15 with Paul, he just sat there. The discussion ended.

Irish Farmer of "Exposing Atheism" to Expose Himself to My Book.

Irish Farmer of Exposing Atheism has apparently started taking the DC Challenge by ordering my book. He said, "if there isn't a good reason to keep the faith, then it isn't worth keeping." I consider his attitude very admirable and worthy of a great amount of respect. Without additional comment and with his permission, here are a few of our emails...

-------------------
John,

I finally ordered your book, and depending on how long it takes to get to me, I should be able to at least get a partial review up on my blog. So, if you care, that will be happening as soon as Amazon gets the book in my hands.

-Irish Farmer
--------------------------

Well, well. This should be interesting. I'm sure you don't have the educational background to argue with everything I wrote about, but that doesn't mean you won't try. My estimation of you just went up there. You are like I once was. You aren't afraid. You think there is nothing in my book that would cause you to doubt, because you believe that your faith beats the competition hands down. I know the feeling, and I wish you well. If nothing else, you will feel like you know me afterward (try not to be too judgmental, okay?) and you will definitely learn a few things, even if in the end you still disagree.

John
------------------------

Ha. I won't be too judgemental. You are right about my educational background. To anyone who asks, I will merely tell them that analytic philosophy is a hobby of mine. Sometimes I'll tell them even if they don't ask.

You are right about us having things in common, though I think you overstate my beliefs. When it comes to fundamentalist atheists (like the RRS), I know I'm lightyears ahead of them. However, you'll notice that out of the plethora of atheist books on my wish list, yours was the first I bought (I bought it in tandem with a social-science study of the Ancient Near East). I figured I would start at what I consider the "top". The reason being, I do find myself having a lot in common with you. You and I at least at some time in our lives were heavily into apologetics, and we both had a heart at some time to help educate and edify other Christians. Although my experience with these things just happens to be more recent.

I am not overly confident, however, that I will be unscathed by your book. What makes me, admittedly, a little nervous is how much I do have in common with you. Basically, you're going to be the closest any atheist ever comes to deconverting me (assuming you don't succeed at it, that is). However, IF you book does deconvert me, it wouldn't be for some time. What your book will do in the short term is give me some issues to ponder which, as always, I will research as in-depth as I can with the resources available to me.

I don't make hasty decisions, and I don't take these issues lightly, nor do I take ANYONE at their word. That includes theists. I've been burned before, and I've learned the hard way that you can't trust anyone, you can only take the good with the bad (hopefully the bad is as minimal as possible). What I'm trying to say is that I'm an extremely skeptical Christian. Which can either work in your book's favor, or against it.

What I would recommend, if you ever get around to making a revision of your book on this scale (adding in arguments and whatnot), is addressing modern philosophical defenses of doubt. For instance, one of Craig's talks that really struck a chord with me was his lecture on how the witness of the Holy Spirit helps us deal with doubt. If you truly want to attack the entirety of the Christian worldview, those types of arguments shouldn't be missed. And perhaps you do address it, I'm just assuming you don't.

However, the reason that's important is that Craig's lecture explained something that I had dealt with my whole life. Regardless of how I was living my life, or what my education level was, or whether or not I was doubting my faith, I always felt the existence of God in my heart. This "witness", if you believe such a thing, eventually helped temper my beliefs so that the more I doubted, the more I had reason to believe in the end. I didn't necessarily pay much attention to this witness at times, but it was always there. Based on my own reflection, guided by people like Dr. Craig, I came to understand this is as the whisper of the Holy Spirit in my life. Now, imagine for a moment how "destructive" it would be to me in my moments of doubt if you were to provide a well thought-out argument for why such a witness is invalid. If I ever were to doubt myself, and your argument was sound, I would have nothing to fall back on. It would make your book much more effective.

It might sound strange, me giving you advice on how to deconvert people, but if there isn't a good reason to keep the faith, then it isn't worth keeping. I'd rather see ideas and thought attacked, and eventually developed, then be dogmatic about said ideas. If Christians could not provide a sound response, then it would throw up a couple red flags about Christianity as far as I'm concerned.

-Irish Farmer
-----------------------------

Thank you for your kind response and for honoring me with being the first atheist book you've chosen to read. We do indeed have a lot in common.

You said: "Now, imagine for a moment how "destructive" it would be to me in my moments of doubt if you were to provide a well thought-out argument for why such a witness is invalid. If I ever were to doubt myself, and your argument was sound, I would have nothing to fall back on. It would make your book much more effective."

I do have a critique of the inner witness of the Spirit in my book. And here's what Norman Geisler said about my argument: "...it is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face. Indeed, some of his criticisms are valid. In particular I would single out his critique of the subjective argument from the alleged self-authenticating 'witness of the Holy Spirit' by Loftus' former teacher William Lane Craig." (pp. 93-94)

I wish you all the best,

John

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

So you do have a critique of the witness of the Spirit? Maybe I should be very careful then...

Irish Farmer

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

Why start now? ;-)

John

David Mills, the First Avowed Atheist to Fly Into Zero Gravity

From a news release:

Atheist Floating to Heavens

HUNTINGTON, West Virginia / KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Florida — As the number of publicly-declared atheists continues to rise in the US and Canada, a new-generation atheist author will, in his own words, "float like an angel in heaven" on Sunday, December 9, 2007 to draw attention to his unholy cause. David Mills, author of the divisive yet briskly-selling book Atheist Universe, is scheduled to become history's first avowed atheist author to fly into zero gravity.

If the mission proceeds as scheduled, Mills, 48, will fly from Kennedy Space Center aboard G-Force One, the same modified 727 space-plane that ferried renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking into weightlessness on April 26, 2007. Unlike Professor Hawking, who was rewarded for his stellar scientific achievements with a "free ride" aboard G-Force One, Mills is self-financing his own cosmic excursion. G-Force One was also previously employed by Producer Ron Howard and Tom Hanks to film weightless scenes for the movie Apollo 13.

When asked what he hoped to achieve through his expensive voyage, Mills replied, "Religious believers think they're going to float like an angel in heaven after they die. Atheists, by contrast, believe that the only life we're ever going to experience is right here and right now. So I'm floating like an angel on December 9th.

"There are still millions of atheists in our nation who feel alone and isolated. I also want to raise their awareness of the diversity of free-thought organizations that now exist for them: The Richard Dawkins Foundation, The Secular Web, The Rational Response Squad, Atheist Alliance, The Freedom From Religion Foundation, and American Atheists to name just a few." He adds, "I hope this flight boosts public visibility of the atheist movement for non-believers and believers alike and underscores that, together, we must work now on earth to resolve our conflicts, rather than storing our treasures in a nonexistent heaven."

According to Mills, who lives in Huntington, WV, "Many other atheists have certainly preceded me throughout the 45 years of manned-space flight. But I'll be proudly and openly representing the estimated 15 million atheists in the US, many of whom continue to feel underrepresented. Like it or not, there are plenty of us [atheists] out there. We're your next-door neighbors and coworkers."

Mills' book Atheist Universe ignited the explosion of atheist books in 2004-05, when it became Amazon.com's emergent and best-selling title on the subject, a sales ranking that it maintained for over two years. Since that time, however, other, better-known authors have followed with atheist volumes of their own, including Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris (The End of Faith & Letter to a Christian Nation), Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell) and Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great). Dawkins quotes Mills extensively in The God Delusion, describing Mills' anti-Fundamentalist writings as "admirable work." Mills' book showcases a Foreword and personal endorsement by Dorion Sagan, son of the late astronomer Carl Sagan.

Not everyone supports Mills and his floating book tour. A Baptist pastor in nearby Charleston, WV, who asked to voice an observation without identifying himself, said, "This is yet another sorry illustration of Mills' juvenile behavior and immature intellect. He uses cheap stunts and theatrics as a substitute for intellectual substance in his writings. Even if he were the first man on Mars, it wouldn't prove that one word of his book was true. We already knew that Mills' brain was weightless, so now the rest of him will be weightless too. This proves only that he's a lightweight. But the Word of God will stand forever on a solid foundation."

Mills' flight aboard G-Force One will jet steeply over the Atlantic Ocean after leaving the Kennedy Space Center. After achieving the necessary sub-orbital altitude, the G-Force craft will then execute a series of high-speed 45-degree nose-dives back toward Earth, creating the weightless condition NASA uses to train its corps of astronauts. Mills' flight entails 15 such parabolic maneuvers, simulating Zero G (or weightlessness), Lunar (1/6th) gravity, and Martian (1/3rd) gravity for approximately 30 seconds during each earthward tumble.

There are 5 such gravity-escaping aircraft on the planet. Three are owned by the governments of Russia, France and the US. Two are owned by Zero Gravity Corporation of Las Vegas, NV, from whom Mills purchased, without sponsorship, his flight into weightlessness.

When asked about personal fear or trepidation about embarking on such a roller coaster flight—described even by hard-boiled NASA astronauts as the "Vomit Comet"—Mills jokingly replied: "To me, Zero G means zero gods. In the highly unlikely event that the aircraft disintegrates before landing safely back at Kennedy, I'll be at peace. I know in my heart where I'm going . . . to the bottom of the ocean to be pilfered by squid."

Interview Contact:

David Mills
www.DavidMills.Net

Sandalstraps on "Do You Believe Every Word of the Bible?"

Link. Chris says, "...in fact no one currently living, Christian, Jew, or otherwise, really believes every word in the Bible."

Creationists Debunked by Science

Check these videos out!

Jesus (At Times) Was an Embarrassment to the Gospel

(Note: In addressing this issue, I’ll assume the reader has a basic working knowledge of the Synoptic Tradition).

In the earlier Gospel of Mark, we find a pericope which tells us that after leaving Bethany with his disciples, a hungry Jesus sees a live fig tree in the distance. Given the change to stuff-his-gut, Jesus makes a bee line to it and finds nothing but leaves, since, as the writer of Mark even knows; hey, it’s not the season for figs.

So what does the Son of God do? He throws a temper fit just like a kid who didn’t get want he wanted. He uses his healing powers now to attack a defenseless fruit tree and kill it (Mark 11:14, 20; = Matthew 21:9).

Now, how is this embarrassing situation handled by the Synoptic Gospel of Luke (13:6-9)? Luke completely rewrites it. The pericope is now placed on the lips of Jesus in the form of a parable so you know it can’t go wrong! Plus, it will make Jesus look good.

The irrational action of an immature Jesus is now transformed and then transferred to a level headed and patient, wisdom-aged farmer who goes three times to the fig tree wanting fruit and finding none, he tells his vinedresser “Cut it down and reuse the ground.” But even the vinedresser pleads with the farmer not to be so impatient and to just give it one more chance by waiting another year. He’s sure, with just a little care and work, the tree will produce fruit. If not (and after the fourth year), the vinedresser agrees with the farmer that it would not be irrational to cut it down (kill it).

The author of Luke /Acts has taken an irrational story where an out-of-control Jesus is removed and it is totally reworked into a wise and intelligent parable of wisdom. By putting it on the lips of Jesus, Luke has now credited Jesus with a parable which will further the spread of the Gospel and not be an embarrassing hindrance to it.

Was Jesus a Jewish Religious Bigot?

The most harden and reveling position Jesus takes in this context is over his love and protection of the exclusive truth of the faith of Israel and its God. As hinted at else where in the Gospels, we see a dark side of Jesus in his cruel and venomous attack on a mother simply requesting his mercy for her possessed daughter (Matt. 15: 21-28)... The Gospel of Mark simply calls her “…a Gentile, of Syrophoenician race.” (Mark 7:26). However, when this verse is redacted in Matt. 15:22, she is call “…a Canaanite woman…” a term used in the time of Jesus equivalent today to an African American being called a “Nigger”. Here Jesus is referenced to the “New Moses” (a theme used by the writer of Matthew) in confronting a non-Jew (Israelite) or a pagan Canaanite woman. His disciples know Jesus’ position on Gentiles; his basic hate for them, but are unable to get rid of her and are forced to file their complaint with Jesus himself who has, up until now ignored her. Now the Jewish Jesus must confront someone his faith and history requires him to hate. Matthew’s Jesus has some cruel fun with her and her sick daughter: “It is not proper to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” Dogs (κυναριοις) is Jesus’ Jewish hate term for Gentiles ( Matt. 7:6 “κυσιν “). Finally Jesus heals her daughter, but only after he extracts from her a verbal confirmation before his disciples and the people watching that only the Jews have God’s blessing and she and her daughter are indeed dogs (notice the play on words here θυγατηρ (young girl) with κυναριοις (small dog)).

Although Jesus warns against adults harming any Jewish child’s faith (Matt. 18:1-6), he has (as expressed in the above pericope) no concern about Gentile children since any faith they may have is non-Jewish and pagan. In short, for Jesus, Gentile dogs have no true faith.

The Cost of Atheism

It's hard to be agnostic, even more a "becoming atheist." Christians often self-congratulate their experiences of "persecution" and "the cost of discipleship," but the cost of agnostic/atheism high, perhaps higher, than any Christian ever imagined.

I have been on both sides of the table. There is no question that discrimination and rejection are experienced by many Christians. Unfortunately, most of it - at least in Western culture - is earned. Rather than demonstrating the love, unity, acceptance and forgiveness that the New Testament proposes as the model of Jesus' life and the expectation of those who are his followers, most contemporary Christians are mean-spirited, self-righteous and hypocritical. Most Christians I encountered during my sojourn through the Land of Oz (ie, Christianity) deserved just about every bit of distrust and disrespect they received.

But a fact often overlooked is that agnostics and atheists are similarly despised and rejected, especially in this psuedo-born again culture of America, that makes some bastardization of Christianity and patriotism synonymous. Listen to the blowhards on any radio talk show or the FOX News network, and you will quickly understand that in the "culture war" of these days, atheists are the "evil empire."

But - actually - I am not thinking of that kind of thing when I talk about the cost of agnosticism/atheism. I am talking about something else, possibly a spiritual dynamic (and certainly psycho-social) that resists the notion of denying or questioning the reality of God. It's really a question of the head versus the heart. My head has always doubted the reality of God - my heart yearns for his reality. Rationally, reasonably, I can question (at least) and deny (at most) the existence of a Divine Being. But my heart wants magic, mystery, and the sense of wonder that can be part of the journey of faith and belief.

I don't have much respect for those on either side of the God debate who deny the role of the aching heart in the agnositic/atheist community. Of course, I admit that not all have the emotional resonance with Christianity that I have as a former Christian. But anyone who denies the role of emotion in the formation of faith and belief is a liar and a fool. We are not just thinking animals...we feel, and our feelings are often a far more powerful reality than our reason.

I miss God. I often want to fall back on easy believism. A recent commenter on this site reminded me of the rules of "easy believism" - God says it, I believe it, that settles it. No questions asked. I wish! My heart wants - indeed, aches - for a trust in a Heavenly Daddy who loves me, desires the best for me, has a plan for me, and will help me accomplish that plan if I put my trust in him (and give his church my money)!

A few days ago, I saw a guy wearing a religious tee-shirt. It showed a knight in armor, kneeling, with his sword in front of him. Over the picture were these words" "The difficulty of what you face is not as great as the Power behind you." It nearly brought me to tears. How I yearn to believe - simply, as a child - that there is God who stood behind me, held me up, helped me through. Alas...and forsooth.

Remember the movie "Pitch Black" - the sci-fi movie that introduced us to Vin Diesel as Riddick, the space cowboy? In that movie, a mullah challenges Riddick, saying "you don't believe in God." Riddick responds - "No, I absolutely do believe in God. And I absolutely hate the M---F---er!"

It's hard to believe. It's harder to choose not to, especially when your heart - your emotional life - yearns to believe.

But there is a reason I choose not to believe...and the cost of atheism is high.

Girl from Qatif Rape Victim

A girl from Qatif was gang raped and the Saudi's blamed her by initially sentencing her to 90 lashes. Is this not barbaric? At least they aren't going to kill her, and they're reviewing her case because of the moral outrage of Westerners. This is exactly what Ayaan Hirsi Ali said in her book Infidel. The girl is blamed if she is raped because men cannot help themselves. Ahhh, poor, poor men. They can't help themselves. Bullshit! Absolute bullshit. At least the men were sent to prison also. According to many Muslims, women should guard their pussies and it's their fault if raped. I am so outraged by this I am beside myself, and this moral outrage is applicable to the Christian faith. Here is the story...

Known only as the "Girl from Qatif," the victim said she was a newlywed who was meeting a high school friend in his car to retrieve a picture of herself from him when the attack occurred in the eastern city of Qatif in 2006.

While she was in the car, two men got into the vehicle and drove them to a secluded area where others waited, and then she was raped.

The ministry's account Saturday alleged that the woman and her lover met in his car for a tryst "in a dark place where they stayed for a while."

The girl was initially sentenced to prison and 90 lashes for being alone with a man not related to her. An appeals court then doubled the lashes to 200.

Again, I have nothing but disgust for the religion of Islam for this.

But there are similar texts in the Old Testament that sanction rape and "honor" killings. A female captive in war was forced to be an Israelite man’s wife (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). That's rape! If a virgin who was pledged to be married was raped, she was to be stoned along with her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), while if a virgin who was not pledged to be married was raped, she was supposed to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

This is all barbaric. At least there are signs that Islam is changing, since they are not going to kill her. How long before they become more civilized like Christians have become in free democracies, I cannot say. But they have similar sacred texts, and Islam is at least more consistent in applying them.

I know. I know. The easy way out is for Christians to deny they are living under the Old Covenant. But big fucking deal (I told you I was outraged)! Why would any good intelligent God ever santion something like this in the first place? I could never worship such a God, and I could never gerrymander around the Biblical texts that have caused such pain. I would at least have to be HONEST with those texts. God sanctioned rape and honor killings against women who did nothing wrong! That God cannot all of a sudden change his moral stripes and say he's perfectly good and loving in Jesus. He's barbaric to the core.

Bill Gnade's Argument in Support of Faith

Since Bill Gnade has visited and commented here at DC so often, I thought I would return the favor and comment on a Blog post of his….

In 2006 Bill made a particular religious argument on his Blog. Recently he said this about it: “I have asked dozens, perhaps hundreds of atheists to reply to my ‘Letter to Christopher Hitchens.’ Not one has done so.”

Okay, I will. Here is Bill’s argument.

Now there is a great deal I could say about it, but the whole point of his argument is what he said in the comments section where he wrote:

I would first point out that I have not argued for or against the existence of God. You see, I am not interested in showing whether God exists; what interests me here is showing that religious belief and non-religious belief are both based in faith: therefore, one is not more or less reasonable than another. My argument, really, is that faith is the only viable epistemological foundation. Mr. Hitchens is in the same boat as any atheist or any theist: he cannot begin to know anything without beginning with a first axiom, premise or step reached by faith. I believe that since faith infuses both the believer's and the sceptic's position, then I can safely conclude that the question is something of a wash.

I believe I have shown that the rational bases for religious and secular beliefs are identical, born in uncertainty. Epistemologically speaking, I…hold to the idea that religion and secularism are "religious" in essence, i.e., based in faith.

I really don’t need to engage the specific examples in his argument to show why it is a wrongheaded non-sequitur, although I could do so. The bottom line is that he’s correct to say we all begin with some sort of faith, since nothing can be proven with apodictic certainty, irrespective of his examples. I must trust my five senses in order to act in this world. I believe I exist as a human being and that the arm in front of me is mine, for the same reason. But I cannot apodictically prove these things. I believe these things. I believe I’m really typing these words in the year 2007, too. Conversely, I do not believe I’m merely dreaming in 2010 about typing these words in the year 2007.

Okay so far? Faith is an essential aspect to knowledge claims. I agree. Without some faith we cannot claim to know anything…anything. Even the Cartesian Cogito ergo sum can only lead us to believe that “doubts exist,” not that there is an “I” who is doing the doubting. And even that meager claim gets us nothing much at all, nor does it lead to any other truth claim, contrary to Descartes’ argument.

One way to phrase Bill’s argument (using some of his very words) goes something like this:

1) Knowledge claims that are based upon faith have no empirical evidence for them.
2) All knowledge claims that are based upon faith with no empirical evidence for them are in the same epistemological boat, in that one of them is not more or less reasonable than another.
3) All religious and non-religious knowledge claims are based on faith without empirical evidence for them.
.: Therefore, religious and non-religious knowledge claims are in the same epistemological boat, in that one of them is not more or less reasonable than another.

After I learn from Bill that I’ve construed his argument properly, I will proceed. If I've misconstrued it, then it would be a waste of time to deal with something that isn't his argument, and I humbly request he specify exactly what his argument is that I've missed.

"An Embarrassment to Atheists?" ;-)

I routinely visit the blogs of people who comment here to see if they represent themselves the same way on their own blogs. William Hawthorne has been commenting here and has been a bit annoying, so I thought I'd take a look.

He comes across as really well-read and really intelligent here, but this is far from the impression I get from his blog, and the issues he comments on. I initially saw a problem when he claimed to list books in support of Christian theism and inadvertently listed one book that was critical of it here. [Does anyone know which one?...Does he?]

Anyway, in one post on his blog he says the RRS is "an embarrassment to atheists." I am always extremely amused whenever a self-proclaimed Christian apologist is concerned for our good name. It is so disingenuous that I just bust out laughing. Imagine, a Christian actually wanting atheists to better represent themselves so they can be more effective!? It's so funny I'm still laughing, and it has nothing to do with the RRS either, since I didn't watch those videos and don't even know what he thinks the RRS has done, except that he's concerned the RRS might give us atheists a bad name. In any case, the only person who represents my beliefs is me, and as such no other atheist is an embarrassment to me. It's a non-sequitur.

Biblical Studies v Philosophical Studies

This post is a continuation of the DC Challenge. This will be brief...

Christians do NOT claim to affirm the grammatical-historical interpretation of the historic Christian creeds based upon reason. That is, they do not reason to their specific beliefs. Deists claim to reason to their beliefs, but Christians who affirm these historic creeds do not. The Christian affirms these creeds based upon accepting revelation from the Christian God, whether they find it in the Bible, or in church tradition. Christians will simply argue that it’s reasonable for them to accept God’s revelation, regardless of where they claim to find it.

However, if what I argue here at DC is true that the Bible is a collection of unwarranted superstitious beliefs, then it's likewise not reasonable for them to accept church tradition as authoritative. For if the Bible is shown to be a false revelation, then the historic church was wrong to proclaim it, and if that’s the case we have no assurance the church isn’t wrong in whatever it proclaims today. If church tradition isn't authoritative, then neither can we trust their selection of the books that go into the canon, since the church created the canonical Bible in the first place. [Protestants, especially evangelicals, claim the Bible created the church, but I cannot make any sense of this claim of theirs].

My point here is simple. In the area of the Philosophy of Religion religious beliefs are scrutinized according to reason to see if said beliefs are consistent and reasonable to believe. It is not a branch of Apologetics where the sum total case for Christianity is examined, nor is it a branch of Theology, where a believer isn't defending his faith so much as explicating it.

For the Christian, all of these areas are important and can be considered on some kind of continuum for defending and understanding their beliefs. But the source of their beliefs comes from the Bible, in one fashion or another. That's why I focus on Biblical studies and Biblical scholarship, because I think with Hector Avalos that Biblical studies should end. The Bible is irrelevant to the needs of modern people. The focus of Biblical studies should henceforth be on debunking them, according to Avalos. I agree.

Those Christians who focus on the Philosophy of Religion must first do the dirty work of investigating the results of Biblical scholarship, since that forms the basis of what they believe, and here is where their arguments cannot get off the ground. What these philosophers have succeeded in doing is to take certain beliefs, as if those beliefs can be defended in the Bible itself, and they try to work out why it's reasonable to believe them. But that gets the cart before the horse. Many smart people can defend stupid and ignorant beliefs that have little or no evidence to them. There are some pretty intelligent Holocaust deniers, Mormon scholars, and militant Muslim scholars, so we all know that people can defend beliefs which have little or no actual evidence for them.

What is the source of your beliefs and what's the evidence for them? That's where these philosophical scholars must start. But since they are in a highly specialized field of learning, they just assume (outside of their specialization) the results of Conservative Biblical scholars to begin with. But they themselves have not done the prerequisite Biblical study.

So my debate challenge is to get down and dirty inside the area of Biblical studies. I think the Bible itself debunks Christianity more than effectively.

Cheers.

Introducing Cognitive Dissonance

This article is meant to introduce the concept of Cognitive Dissonance and how it relates to Christianity.
Cognitive Dissonance is a term in psychology that describes the feeling of tension experienced by a person when they hold two conflicting beliefs. When this happens to a person they feel uncomfortable and they start trying to figure out a way to reconcile the beliefs so they don't seem to conflict anymore and / or the discomfort is relieved. Dissonance is more likely to happen if the major idea is about who we are. To better explain this concept some examples of situations that introduce cognitive dissonance follow.

- People who think they are smart, moral or competent and they make a mistake that would indicate otherwise.
- People with addictions that know the behavior is harmful but want to continue to do it anyway, such as smokers, overeaters, compulsive gamblers, alcoholics
- People that are genetically disposed to Mental Illness have difficulty in reconciling their actions with their conscience
- People that cheat on or find ways to reduce their taxes either unintentionally or intentionally.
- People that make excuses for the 'embarrassing' or trouble-making member of the family.
- People that automatically start 'playing the blame game' and pointing fingers.
- Politicians, in fact there is a book out on this right now that is referenced at the end of this article.
- Subordinates that have to justify enforcing policies they don't support, in business, government, military, etc
- Salespeople that have to sell a product they don't particularly care about, but have a need to exaggerate its value to the customer
- Professional people that have made a mistake that impacts their self image, such as a prosecuting attorney that wrongly convicts someone who is subsequently shown through something such as DNA evidence to be innocent. The attorney doesn't want to believe they have made this kind of mistake.
- People that want to believe in things that are not supported by strong evidence such as Superstitions, UFO's, Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, Ghosts, Psychic phenomena, faith healing, etc
- People that have to reconcile why they hold a certain Religious belief rather than another
- People that have to reconcile events in their religion that they do not like, such as the many anecdotes in the Old Testament.
- People that have to reconcile why an all powerful and loving god would create the need to permit so much apparently needless suffering in the world.
- People that have to reconcile why Jesus mother and family thought he was crazy as described in Mark.
- People that have to reconcile why an all powerful loving God uses principles that are shown in day to day life to be flawed.

Once you understand the concept of Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Justification, you can see examples of it literally hour to hour, and especially in Movies and in TV where authors have to introduce conflict as quickly as possible to set the premise and give the characters something to do. It seems to be a mechanism, or drive related to self-preservation. The brain is wired for self-justification. It has been identified in every major culture. It shows up in fmri brain scans. Drew Weston showed that when a person is experiencing dissonance, the thought processes shut down and when the subject starts reducing dissonance the brain centers that show pleasure become activated. The problem is that it is a means of utilizing bias and ignoring evidence that prevents finding the truth or resolution of a problem. Once a person is experiencing Cognitive Dissonance it is very difficult for another person to interrupt the process. Attempts by another person to interrupt the process will result in the intensifying of the process and the resolve of the person experiencing dissonance to continue attempting to reconcile it.

An episode in a series of Psychology videos explains bias and cognitive dissonance very well. Follow this link Learner.org Part 11: Judgement and decision making. Registration is free to watch but you will have to create an account and I recommend it as 'safe' because i haven't received any spam since i did.

Of the many things the video talks about is a seminal experiment by Leon Festinger and Carl Smith.
Leon Festinger conducted one of the first experiments to introduce conditions that reliably induce dissonance. In the experiment the subjects were told to perform boring tasks. Afterwards they were given the opportunity to receive payment if they could influence others to participate in the experiment. Some subjects were given a twenty dollar payment, others only a one dollar payment and some were not given the offer. When asked to rate the tasks, the group that was paid one dollar rated them more highly than the group that was paid twenty. The group that was paid twenty dollars had an obvious external justification fortheir behavior, but those that were paid less had to internalize it. The researches theorized that the one dollar group did not believe they had sufficient justification to lie about the tasks so they were forced to changetheir attitude to relieve the stress. The process allowed the subjects to genuinely believe the tasks were enjoyable. Here is a link to the original paper.

Another similar experiment was done by Elliot Aronson where two groups were picked to join an organization with a initiation tasks. The organization turned out to be boring and uninteresting, but those that had the harder initiation felt more loyalty to it than those that had the easy initiation.

Leon Festinger summed it up in the video as "we come to love what we suffer for".

Carol Tarvis and Elliot Arronson (the researcher noted above) wrote a book on this subject called Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs
In an interview with Carol Tarvis on Point of Inquiry, the Podcast of the Center for Skeptical Inquiry she was asked if Cognitive Dissonance is manifested in religious belief and the following summarizes her response.

Q: There are religious people that don't demand proof for their beliefs, is this a way of relieving their cognitive dissonance?
A: The more important a particular belief is to us the more strongly we will ignore or reject evidence suggesting we are wrong. Religion is central to what gives many people meaning and purpose in life. This type of belief will be defended at all costs. Examples of dis-confirming evidence creating Cognitive Dissonance are Evolution, the Holocaust and disasters.
Most religious people are not threatened by evolution. They find a way to fit it into their beliefs, but some cannot fit it into their beliefs and they will go to great lengths to try to refute the dis-confirming evidence.
How do Jews deal with the Holocaust? The Jews believe they are the chosen people, and god is looking after them. How could a good loving god have permitted genocide? Students of Cognitive Dissonance Theory would predict that people would become more religious and their faith would be strengthened. What most people do is not lose their faith in God but reduce the dissonance by saying God is responsible for the Good in the world, human beings are responsible for the Evil or God is testing faith. The Christian response to the question of how Jesus could permit enormous suffering to happen is to believe that it is to test faith. Anything that is not consonant with a belief in God is reinterpreted to make it consonant. For example after a terrible disaster the survivors will say something like "god was looking after me" but discounting the fact that God was not looking out for other people that died.

Another interesting interview related to cognitive dissonance is from the radio show "All in the Mind". They interviewed Phillip Zambardo, the lead researcher involved with the Stanford Prison Experiment. The experiment had to be cancelled because it got out of control. The participants started self-justifying doing terrible things to each other and it had to be stopped. He was the expert witness for the defendants in the Abu Ghraib trial, explaining how situational factors can make good people do bad things using cognitive dissonance to self-justify their actions. It is described in his book
The Lucifer Effect. It made me think about slavery, the crusades, Old Testament atrocities and William Lane Craigs defense of killing pregnant mothers with a sword. (thanks Steven Carr!)

I suffered severely from dissonance and when I decided to subject my religious beliefs to the same type of criteria and scrutiny that I used for my day to day life, I discovered that I could no longer hold a belief in God. I Know that it is likely that I am not going to convince any christian that there is no God, but what I can do is, through the use of rational discussion, point out the weakness in their arguments and principles that their arguments depend on to introduce cognitive dissonance in their mind.

People use different criteria for reasoning based on the context of the situation. They are called Spheres when the the concept is applied to a group and "compartmentalizing" when applied to an individual. This concept is discussed in Stephen Toulmins "Introduction to Reasoning" and Richard D. Reinke and Malcom O. Sillars "Argumentation and Critical Decision Making". The difference in the spheres and compartments can be seen very well when comparing Scientific reasoning, Legal Reasoning, Religious Reasoning, Artistic Reasoning, and Business Reasoning. I am sure these are not all the spheres that can be identified but they are useful for this discussion. The difference between them is the weight that each places on types of evidence and principle. And often one type of reasoning taken out of context and applied in another sphere or compartment breaks down. For example, the type of anecdotal evidence used in Legal reasoning would break down when applied to science, just as Religious witness testimony breaks down when applied to Legal Reasoning. These facts insulate poor reasoning and can be used to Justify poor conclusions. However, when comparing the principles that conclusions depend on, it is not so easy to justify poor conclusions. For example, the concept of evidence is fundamental to all the types of reasoning but the type of evidence is not. However, if we say the type of evidence needed to justify a Christian belief is not sufficient to justify a Muslim, Hindu, Jewish (etc) then the principle breaks down and we can say the conclusion is flawed.

If you watch this blog long enough you can see people wrestling with this concept as illustrated here in this recent exchange between me and a commenter. We were talking 'embarrassing moments' in the bible and whether or not they are useful to build a case for authenticity. The argument goes that by including the 'embarrassing moments' in the bible it adds authenticity to it.

Lee:
I wouldn't even add it [argument for authenticity from embarrassing moments] to my portfolio to make a cumulative case. The reason why is someone like me would turn it around and point out, like I did in my first post, that in the beginning, Jesus as god was not the consensus. These things put in there were not threatening to that idea. Over time they became threatening. I would turn this argument around and say that it better supports Jesus lack of divinity because the anecdotes are not consistent with what should be the case if a god walked the earth, and if anyone should know it would be his mother. It better supports as ed points out that the further away from the event the larger his divinity grew which is more consistent with the creation of a legend than historical authenticity.

Commenter:
I would ad it [argument for authenticity from embarrassing moments] considering that it contributes in a positive way, even if it is neither necessary nor necessarily sufficient to make a case. Historical inquiry demands that I take it into consideration. The alternatives, while plausible, are not very strong in my opinion since they argue from silence and are based on hypotheticals.

What I want to point out is that while he asserts that the principle i am using to build my case is flawed he is happy to use it for his argument. Namely that the alternatives that I am using are not very strong and based on hypotheticals. His argument was too. And I claim his are based on them to a much larger degree since I have precedent on my side. In any case, I didn't use this example to declare that I am right, I simply used it as the most recent example of cognitive dissonance that I have experienced. If you watch this blog day to day, you see it almost every day.

The truth will stand up to scrutiny and the truth will set you free. People just have to decide to break down the walls between those compartments and identify and eliminate sources of bias because they will not be convinced by anyone otherwise.

REFERENCES not all inclusive, refer to the body of the article for more.

* Point of Inquiry podcast with Carol Tavris interview.
* Science Friday podcast interview with Elliot Aronson
* Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs
* Wikipedia on Cognitive Dissonance
* Stanford Prison Experiment
* The Lucifer Effect

Solomon Asch conformity experiments
* Solomon Asche
* Conformity Experiments
* YouTube video

Drew Weston
* Discussion of his experiment
* His book "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation"

Fire From Heaven and Broken Promises

Imagine two people making promises to you. The promises are basically the same: "Do this for me, and I will..." One promises to give you one million dollars. The other promises to give you a new house.

You do the deed, and go to the first person for the promised reward. Their response is something like this: "sorry, I don't have that money to give you right now," or "you have to wait until you die (wink, wink) to get that reward," or "sorry, that was a metaphor...the million dollars actually represents treasures of joy, happiness and fulfillment for doing what I want you to do," or "yeh, that promise was for someone else, not you. You just misinterpreted my words on that one."

You go to the second person for the promised reward. They give you keys to a new house; not a mansion, just a basic 3-bed, 2-bath ranch. But, at least, they kept the promise. No tricks, no excuses, no blaming you for misunderstanding.

I have seen so many Christians try to excuse their God from failing to make the promises He makes in the Bible. They even go so far as to say that the Bible really is not their sacred book, their Source for their belief. Of course, if you ask them to explain where their thinking and doctrine about God come from, their response is to accuse you of being unintelligent, belligerent, or simplistic.

But, the simple and plain truth is, that in the Bible, which is the Source of Christian doctrine and belief - whether certain Christians like it or not - are a truckload of promises that have not been kept, are not kept, and will never be kept (if God remains consistent with himself up to this point).

Which, fundamentally, makes God either (1) a liar, or (2) the Bible is really an evil, deceptive and destructive Source for doctrine, or (3) there is no God at all, and the Bible is - again - a powerfully destructive book because it appeals to people's hopes, dreams, aspirations, and faith...and it does not deliver because their is no Divine Being to back it up.

Now, what of this other person who made the promise and kept it? Who might that other person be? The Devil? Secularism? Science? Atheism? Hmmm...

Apart from the Devil (who probably does not exist, since there is no God), the others present a very attractive alternative to the Christian God. Why? Because at least they deliver. No, they do not deliver a mansion. Nor do they deliver the neat, perfect doctrinaire answer that ninety-nine percent of Christians like to believe their God offers (and can be summed up so easily in the "Statement of Doctrine" found in most, if not all, churches). But (and excuse my metaphor) it is the key to a new house. It is something.

In 1 Kings 18, there is a great story of the prophet Elijah confronting Ahab, the King of Israel who has turned to Baal worship. Elijah challenges Baal to prove himself in competition with God. Elijah dares for two bulls to be place on altars...the Baal prophets will pray to their God, Elijah will pray to his God (who he and the Bible claim is the one, true God). The Baal prophets pray and pray and pray. Nothing happens. Elijah mocks them. Nothing happens.

Then Elijah prays, and of course God answers by fire from heaven, consuming Elijah's bull, the altar, and the bull and altar used by the Baal prophets.

Elijah makes this great challenge to set up the whole deal: "let the god who answers by fire, let him be God!"

Remember Promise Keepers, that huge evangelical men's ministry stadium show that was hugely popular several years ago?

Promise Keeper? God? Not hardly! The so-called God of the Bible has been silent for a long, long, long time. Many hundreds of thousands of millions of faithful have prayed and prayed and prayed...and fasted...and prayed. No fire from heaven. No whisper in the wind. No million dollars. No key to a new house.

Nothing. If the god who answers by fire is truly God...then I think the atheists have made their point.

Welcome to the World of Christianity

As a Christian, you are now following a supreme God who created the universe. The following are some of the main superlative facts you need to know about God (Yahweh):

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

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

HOWEVER

You now know Satan (a fallen angel) is your only and main adversary who leads a small rag-tag army of other fallen angles (demons).

Satan has very limited power (Just what little power and control God gives him).
Satan has no earthly members. (Just a few “Dabblers”).
Satan has no budget.

AND YET

According to God’s own word the Bible (especially the Book of Revelation) God, with all the above supreme attributes, is losing a battle He created and even sacrificed His only begotten son to win.
You, as a Christian, will one day stand before your God at the Great White Throne Judgment and be asked to “give an account” of why you, as a mortally limited and sinful human, screwed up. From there, most of your members will be given total blame for the lost of creation and along with unforgiven sinners you will be casted into The Lake of Fire to be burned and tormented forever.

HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND THIS?

It is a divine Mystery

(The theological term used by the Catholic Church for our mortal lack of understanding.)

The Strange Case of Evangelist Oliver Green and Rudolf Bultmann with a Note on C.S. Lewis

The president and founder of the radio broadcast, The Gospel Hour (still on many Christian stations today), Evangelist Dr. Oliver B. Green (Feb. 14, 1915 – July 26, 1976) loved the fundamentalist theology and good sound King James’ Version of Biblical truth backed by a strong evangelistic preaching of salvation. I used to listen to him in the early ‘70s and hear him complaint about the circulation in his legs “it’s like my legs are on fire”. His website states:

"Early in life it was immediately evident Oliver B. Greene was an independent Baptist. Through all of his ministry he carried the honor of being one who "could not be bought." In 1939, the 24-year-old bought a tent, and for 35 years he conducted revivals all across America, until failing health forced him to stop.

Carefully kept records reveal that over 200,000 found Christ under his ministry. Perhaps his single greatest campaign was in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, where 7,000 professions of faith were registered. He held his last tent revival in Bel Air, Maryland (this tent was 100 feet by 300 feet). "

He died at the rather early age of 61 from cardio-vascular failure. Green also had two sons who suffered form birth defects. One I know from personal experience was born with only one arm (I helped change the avionics in his plane for a one armed control).

On the other hand, Rudolf Bultmann (Aug. 20, 1884 – July 30, 1976) demythologized the Kerygma of the New Testament, wrote Kerygma and Myth and latter Jesus Christ and Mythology in 1958. Bultmann stood for almost everything opposite of Fundamentalist Christianity and yet he died a peaceful death at age 92 (just less than a month short of his 93 birthday and in the same month and year as Green (a providence of God?)). The fact is, this nonbeliever out lived Oliver Green by almost 32 years.

If God blesses those who bless Him and curses those who cruse Him; where is the so called Providential Justice? Also, if as Greek philosophy claims God does not make mistakes; than why were both Green’s sons born birth defects?

Note: In the same vein, apologist C.S. Lewis (1898 – 1963 whose “Mere Christianity” is often pointed to as a defense of the evangelical faith) died also at an early age (when compared to Bultmann) at 64. After his wife Joy died of cancer, he wrote under a pseudonym “A Grief Observed” in which he wrestled with the reality of his faith in Christianity and his struggle to hold on to this faith.

So just how is this Theodicy explained? Unlike the early Christian disciples who died often at an early age for their faith; most meeting their end by martyrdom, these defenders of the faith seem to have been destroyed or cursed by the very God they apologetically defended!

Christians Converting Christians to Christianity

Jesus is equal to a chemical catalyst (a chemical catalyst changes other elements in a chemical reaction, but does not change itself). The failed apocalyptic view of a first century Jewish reformer seems to have been forever lost forever in time and space (Albert Schweitzer / Rudolf Bultmann). As a theological catalyst, he now has created chemical reactions in the minds of over 20,000 sects within Christendom with most claiming the exclusive rights to the word "Truth" or, according to each sect; Truth" should be a registered Trade Mark in the US Patten Office. As an example here just last week, are the two Jehovah Witnesses left an "Awake" magazine with my wife. It stated emphatically that while there are religions calling themselves Christian, there is only ONE TRUE CHRISTIANITY - those believers called by Jehovah to witness His "Truth"...door to door. Also here we find Mormons, Church of Christ, Seventh Day Adventist, Christian Science, and Catholics all having THE exclusive TOTAL TRUTH given to them by God. As viewed from within, each of these sects, see other Christianities are "Deceptions of man" or at worst, "lies of Satan".

Just tune in the “Catholic Global Radio New Work” (either on satellite radio or an AM station) and hear form evangelical Protestants “coming home” to the true and only orthodox Church Jesus Christ accepts. On their website: http://www.catholic.com/ hundreds of books and pamphlets are offered debunking the belief of evangelicals and their “born again” theology. Apologist Karl Keating invites the “heretics” of evangelical / Protestant theology to debate him on the air. More over, some of the major Catholic defenders of the faith are former evangelicals who now defending the truth of the Roman Catholic Church against evangelicals without compromise.

On the other hand, I worked with a Baptist on furlong from Guam (an island whose population is 90% Catholic) which he stated has a lost population which desperately needs to break that hold Satan has on it by hearing and accepting the Gospel of Christ. I’ve seen this man breakdown and cry over his “burden for lost Catholics”.

Since ignorance breeds superstition, the human mind feeds on the fear of a supreme figure theology labels as absolute "Truth". Stories of a vengeful God killing anyone viewed as sinful in many parts of the "Old Testament" or a disappointed loving God of the New Testament who "fries people like bacon in Hell" creates the same fear in an adult as the ghost that hides under the bed or the noise in the attic does for a child's mind... just as the stories of the brothers Grimm. Is it any wonder after viewing the movie The Exorcist (according to Billy Graham) many Christians had to seek psychological counseling.

So how is truth is so subjectively maintained? As a Baptist preacher told me 38 years ago..."The Bible said it! I believe it! That settles it!...No wait. The Bible said it! That settles it! I don't have to believe it!" Thus, we have absolute "TRUTH" in its purest from!

It’s little wonder that when I asked an evangelical Christian which is worst: an Atheist or a Heretic? He answered definitely “A Heretic!”

Stephen Law on Faith, Reason and the Existence of God

Author and philosopher Stephen Law wrote an excellent essay about faith, reason and the existence of God. Check it out!

Christianity is More Dangerous Than Atheism Because of the Same Reasons I Reject it!

I'm beginning to think that when it comes to the question, "which belief system killed more people, Christianity or atheism,” that the answers given are a wash. There has been evil done on both sides, such that by merely looking at the evil itself we cannot conclude which set of beliefs is more dangerous. The numbers themselves don't tell us the whole story, so continually adding and subtracting which set of beliefs killed the most people doesn't tell us much about which set of beliefs is more dangerous.

Since it's obvious people use religion for their own selfish and evil purposes, and since self-destructive and egomaniacal people who reject religion can kill people in the name of atheism, this debate doesn't show much to us about the truth or falsity of our respective claims, except in one important respect, which is the same one we argue about between us anyway!

Christians have a revelational claim. They do not reason to their specific beliefs (the trinity? Virgin Birth? Incarnation?). They learn about such beliefs from God’s revelation and then they argue these beliefs are reasonable. Even the arguments for God's existence cannot get a person to the Trinity. Non-believers claim to follow reason and science. We have separate starting points.

That difference between us is also the same difference when it comes to which set of beliefs are more dangerous, I think, and it's clear to me which ones are indeed more dangerous. It's the Christian set of beliefs. Why? Because there’s this entity called the Holy Spirit. The Christian claim is that he speaks to them both individually through illumination, or collectively through the Bible. Non-believers have no such belief. What atheists believe is based on reason and science (in various degrees, since there are intelligent and educated ones as well as ignorant ones).

Individually a Christian can claim to have heard the Holy Spirit or God speaking directly to them, and this voice can say “kill people,” or a host of other messages, many benign. Those who claim God told them to “kill people” are the insane people, of course, but an atheist insane person has no such justification if he chooses to kill.

Whenever God’s message is believed based upon this inner voice of God’s, without evidence, Christians are absolutely sure of it and they can do a great amount of evil in God’s name precisely because a belief held without reason is one that cannot be debunked by reason. They can claim practically anything. From “God wants so-and-so elected,” to “I should marry this person,” to “we should have another baby,” to “I should bash gay people and infidels,” to “our church should step out on faith and build a bigger church,” to “so-and-so is an evil person.” These beliefs can do harm, and they are adopted based upon a voice in their own heads.

An Christian individual who hears this voice can influence a church or a nation on a collective level, if that person is a leader. Collectively a church can do great harm in such things as the Inquisition, the Crusades, or by endorsing slavery. A “Christian” nation can endorse such things as “manifest destiny,” or that we should invade Iraq, or support the Jews no matter what, because they are supposedly in Biblical “end-time prophecies.”

So I think these beliefs of Christians are dangerous and do produce greater evil for the very same reasons I reject it. Their beliefs are not based upon reason and science! Any belief not so based can and does lead to great harm.

The question I have posed continually is why God never said such things as “Thou shalt not trade, sell, buy, own, or beat slaves,” and said it as often as needed for the collective church to get the point (this could be done for witch, honor, and heretic killings as well). And if a proper exegesis of the relevant Biblical texts should’ve been so clear in the Bible that Southern Christianity was not getting it right about slavery, then where was the Holy Spirit’s influence? If Christians can repeatedly and grossly reject the influence of the Holy Spirit, then what influence does he really have in the lives of believers?

The fact is that the very claim that Christians make of the Holy Spirit and of revelation makes the Christian belief system more dangerous that atheism, regardless of which belief system killed more people. It's the basis for the Christian claim that makes it ipso facto more dangerous...by far.

Eddie Tabash Responds

Earlier we had a discussion about Eddie Tabash's argument on the separation of church and state to be found here. There were some unanswered questions so I emailed Eddie and here is his response...

Bill Gnade is concerned that there is too much of a focus on the role played by right wing Christians in eroding church/state separation. There is no need to discuss liberal Christians, because they are not the problem. My speech is entitled the “Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms.” In this presentation, I speak of the need for nonbelievers to work with liberal believers to secure freedom of conscience for everyone. However, the threat to turn the United States into a theocracy is a real danger that emanates from the religious right. Focusing my criticism on the religious right does not entail any automatic condemnation of liberal Christians or religionists, in general, who agree on keeping God and government separate.

Bill Gnade is also concerned about absurdities that can flow from church/state separation. If properly applied, there would be no legal disabilities imposed on believers. Believers would only enjoy no greater rights than non believers, as it should be.

The writer, Jon, apparently does not comprehend the dangers of pure democracy, as opposed to a constitutional democracy. He also does not appreciate the role of the 9th Amendment in preserving for the people rights otherwise not given to the states. The states are defined as their collective law making authority. If they are not specifically empowered to encroach on a liberty interest, that interest must lie with individuals.

Jon is also not persuaded that the framers intended strict separation between church and state, that is, government neutrality in matters of religion. In my talk, I think I showed that this is what the Framers clearly intended. However, for a more developed historical analysis of why the Establishment Clause was designed to require government neutrality in matters of religion, please see my in depth article on the True Meaning of the Establishment Clause.

Jon seems to miss the importance of empowering individual liberty to stave off state oppression. The incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states, by way of the 14th Amendment, accomplishes this. If our most basic liberties can be crushed by government, if there is no right of privacy, then it does not matter that the oppressive arm of government emanates from the state house rather than Congress.

The Establishment Clause clearly prohibits government bodies from imposing religious-based laws on individuals. So, if a state can burst into the marital bedroom and stop the use of contraceptives, we have a form of state totalitarianism that is in violation of the liberty interests of the very limited government that conservatives keep harping about. Also the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, along with the Establishment Clause, and the 9th Amendment, incorporated to local governments by the 14th Amendment, clearly justifies preventing a dictatorial majority from using the police power of the state to trample on minority rights.

So, yes, I do not favor, and I do not believe the Bill of Rights favors, unbridled democracy. I believe that the Constitution places limits on the degree to which majority sentiment can encroach upon minority rights.

If I wish to express my views in public as to why I believe there is no God, it wouldn’t matter if 100% of those hearing those views wanted the state to forcibly stop me from expressing those views. Such expression is protected. The state of Alabama, for instance, should not be permitted to prosecute me, even if 100% of those living in that state insisted that atheists should not have the same rights to speak in public as do religionists, and I publicly expressed my reasons for not believing in God at a public debate at the University of Alabama.

In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia mentioned masturbation as among the “deviant” sexual activities that a state should be able to ban. America would become a tyranny if the cops could burst into someone’s bedroom and arrest that person for privately jerking off, regardless of what the majority of residents of the given state thought.

Eddie Tabash

Subject: Is it a Fact that the Biblical Background is Original?

Below is how I now understand salvation and Christianity and why I'm not worried about a future life in a Heaven or Hell. You will not find this taught in church supported schools (Bible colleges or conservative seminaries) nor mentioned in Sunday School classes as these facts would totally be counter productive in any development of faith.

As a non-Christian (one who was never saved (John Calvin) or one who lost his salvation (Jacobus Arminius)…I’ll leave that up to the theologians to debate) I feel very fulfilled with my life and find the concepts of eternal reward or punishment meaningless now in light of the environment. But just to clarify my view, below is the central reason why I left Christianity.

Some Major Biblical Facts

A. Every major Greek theological term and concept the New Testament and Early Church used to create his or her religious doctrine was taken directly from the Classical “pagan” world. Here are a few: God (Greek: Theos) Church, Faith, Prayer, Salvation, Gospel, Heaven, Hell, Sin, Soul, Spirit, Demon, Forgiveness, Sacrifice, Blood Atonement, the concept of “god” as father, divine punishments and rewards and so on. These terms and concepts were loaded words pregnant with meaning from the so-called “pagan” religious traditions and applied by the early followers of Jesus to their up start religion(s) (Christianity is a “catch all” term for all early Jesus movements whether latter accepted as orthodox or not). As proof, look up any of the above words in Oxford’s Classical Greek Lexicon (A Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell, Scott, Jones) and watch how the word is reapplied latter by the authors of the New Testament in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Funk and finally the exclusive use in the Christian tradition in Oxford’s A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Lamp. These “pagan” religions used these same terms and concepts for hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus which enabled people like St. Paul proselytize based on the foundations of Classical religious traditions (Paul needs this foundation to preach at Athenians: Acts 17). It is little wonder Christianity was given its name and had great success in Classical pagan Asia Minor while the teachings of Jesus (as found in the Synoptic Gospels and taught by such Jewish-Christian sects as the Ebionites whose terms and concepts where base the Semitic Aramaic language) had mostly died out in Roman Palestine by 400 CE.

Even the first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine, minted coins with a cross on one side and Apollo, the Sun god, on the other. The New Testament’s concept of judgment where God is seated on a throne with Jesus either standing or seated at His right hand is drawn directly from the court of the Roman Emperor with his son or favorite general seated or standing to his right and set the stage for the imperial cult worship of the Emperor.

Symbolic numbers such as 3, 6, 7, 12, 40, 72 are also given divine meanings and are used repeatedly by Jesus and the writers of the New Testament (especially in the book of Revelation) to reveal divine mysteries. These same six numbers can be found as symbolic and magical numbers in much older stories and religious texts from ancient Semitic language families such as Akkadian, Phoenician, and Ugaritic. In light of this fact (as argued by Christian apologist) to claim that “God” uses known symbols and terms of the ancient pagan world only begs the question as to the exclusive truthfulness of both Judaism and Christianity.

The West Semitic language of Hebrew (of the Israelites) is a direct dialect of the hated Canaanites reed stylus script: Ugaritic (Note: The late Hebrew alphabet script compared to the ancient reed logographic script proves which came first). The symbol used in the Book of Revelation of the seven- headed beast (Rev. 13) was a concept already about 1000 years old when the writer of this Christian book chose to plagiarize it (see: Ancient Near Eastern Text in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton University Press). Thus the New Testament writers often depended on, and needed popular pagan symbols to create accepted and factual bases for their new faith so the Christian tradition would fit right in to a competing “pagan” religious context.

In a world in which most people were poor and illiterate, with few living past the age of thirty (where a simple abscessed tooth could cause death), the austere teaching of the Synoptic Jesus on wealth (Matt. 13:22, Mark 10:25, Luke 6:24, 16:19-31) is replaced with promises of “health, wealth and prosperity” in latter works such as the Gospel of John where the faithful will be given many rooms (Greek: mona) in Heaven (John 14:2) or, in the books of Revelation, where the righteous walk on streets of gold in an emerald city (Rev. 21: 9-21).

Even recent major archaeological discovery now shows, more than ever, that the Hebrews are themselves part of their hated neighbors: the Canaanites. The lack of any archaeological sites that are linked to the Israelites in the Sinai over their forty year journey under a man called Moses are proving there was never an exodus form Egypt as stated in the Bible (for a review of the facts see: America’s leading archeologist William Dever in his book: Who Were the Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Eerdmans, 2003). In fact, the old lunar calendar of the Canaanites and their religious festivals to their gods is the same basic calendar of dates for many of Israel’s major festivals: Rosh ha-shanah, Sukkot, Pesach and Shavu’ot. Shav’uot.

It’s very interesting that while so called Bible Believers (as such, Bob Jones University) claim to accept the Bible at face value and follow Jewish tradition (and that of Jesus himself) that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, they never explain why an earlier text such as Deuteronomy 18:10 is not followed or accepted by Yahweh Himself in a much latter time/text such as the burning of Jephthah’s daughter in Judges 11:29-40 (and notice that the English word used here: Lord is the direct rendering of Hebrew Yahweh in the Masoretic Hebrew text ). Even if the text of Deuteronomy 18 is dated into the Josianic reforms, Yahweh Himself has both prohibited and accepted human sacrifice as a burnt offering! It’s now just a small step from accepting a human burnt offering (that of Jephthah’s daughter) to the human crucified offering: Jesus. One thing being equal, Israel’s god Yahweh and the Canaanite gods (Baal / El) both accepted human flesh and blood as a sacrifice!

What Best Explains the "Embarrassing Elements" in the Gospels?

I'll comment later, but what do you think about this argument?

The Ache of Christmas

I am an agnostic on my best days, and an atheist on my better days. But when Christmas comes around, I ache inside.

I miss the meaning of the music, which in my opinion is the best and most moving choral and common music ever written. I miss the mystery of the moment, when God incarnated Himself in humanity. I miss the power of the myth...incarnation in a poor, forsaken Jew, living in occupied territory, born with a murder threat over his head and the head of his family.

I have been to Israel. I have stood in the cave under the Church of the Nativity. I have stood in the Shepherd's Cave. I have looked out over the fields where the shepherds watched their flocks at night. I looked up in the expanse of sky above my head, where those shepherds saw angels singing "Hosanna, peace on earth (not hardly), good will to mankind (yeh, well...)." I visited the little excavated home in Nazareth, swallowed up by a modern cathedral, where Mary raised the little Messiah to be. (OK - I am pulling a Paul here, trying to cite my credentials for the benefit of my attackers).

I even learned on that visit - and received it with a skeptical mind and heart because I was anointed of the Holy Spirit, and walking in faith - that those sites had absolutely no historic merit, but were consigned that identity by Catherine and the ambassadors from Constantine that marked off the Holy Land for Christianity in the fourth century.

Hell, I even miss Santa Claus, in my mind - now - a myth equal to the myth of Jesus and possibly more rooted in fantastical realism. The gifts under the tree, the Christmas Eve dinner, the singing of carols, the celebration with wassail...all of those things seem somewhat empty to me now that I have given up the Ghost.

It is not easy being agnostic at Christmas. HP Lovecraft - admittedly not the philosopher or intellect that is often quoted here, but a man of keen insight and a philosopher's vision - looked up at the stars and saw a cold, heartless, meaningless universe. John Loftus compared our plight on planet earth to a Monte Carlo card game...Bill Gnade took him up on it and an interesting argument ensued. Bottom line...when one embraces agnosticism, or atheism, one embraces a cold, heartless, meaningless universe that has no regard for humanity or the plight of humans or the destiny of individuals. Chuthulu may as well be out to destroy us for no reason other than that we, as a species and a race, are in his way. Doesn't matter.

Doesn't matter that I am agnostic, or that at one time I stood on the cliff overlooking Shepherd's Field and wept with wonder at the immensity of that alleged night.

The hardest truth of all...it does not matter. There are probably atheists and agnostics out there who will deny that they ever feel the emptiness of that truth. Or perhaps they don't ever feel that...and I envy them. I feel the ache, and Christmas just makes the ache of that reality more poignant. But as one who once worshipped the Babe in the Manger, and now does not...I am convinced that it is better to find a way to embrace the ache and get on with it, than to live in a delusion that - like the truth about Santa - may cause more damage than good.

So, it's midnight...and things are clear.