Here are some Old Testament passages that debunk the Bible...
It has been said that the Bible debunks itself, and I agree wholeheartedly. Isaac Asimov said, “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." The difficulties abound. There are scientific, political, moral and inconsistency problems that can be found in almost every chapter of the Bible. But only a limited selection is reproduced here.[1] Some of them do not need comment because they go against every decent moral standard civilized people accept in today's world, even most Christians of today, despite several Christian rationalizations for them.[2]
I’m going to highlight not the best texts, but the worst ones. Nearly everyone does some good deeds, and nearly every work contains at least some good moral teachings. So it should surprise none of us that there is good in the Bible. But even if the good outweighs the bad that does not show why the bad is in the Bible, for Christians believe in a perfectly good God. If this is the case, then the nasty things in the Bible need to be examined and explained, not explained away. I’ll show how some of these passages are just repugnant, while others were used by believers rightly or wrongly to thwart scientific, political, and moral progress.
Of those texts which were misinterpreted and wrongly used by subsequent believers, my question is this one: Why didn’t God effectively communicate his will to his people? Communication is a two-way street. Both the one doing the communicating and the one listening must do their best in facilitating a correct understanding. But with God there is an additional problem, since he supposedly knows how certain texts could (and would) be misused by human fallible beings. From the true scale of the universe to the issue of slavery God could’ve told humans the truth about it all from the very beginning. On the issue of slavery, God could’ve said: “Thou shalt not buy, own, or beat slaves,” and said it as often as needed. He could’ve even condemned all racism, but he didn’t. In fact, my contention is that there is not a single statement in the Bible which reveals a divine mind behind the human authors. Everything said in it can be accounted for much better by the hypothesis that it’s just the reflections and musings of an ancient superstitious barbaric people.
Notorious Old Testament Biblical Passages
The Genesis One Creation Account. This passage is contrary to modern science in so many ways. Notice the earth existed before the universe of stars. Notice also that the earth rises out of the primeval chaotic waters, and that the “firmament” (a hard dome like structure), arose out of those same waters. On the fourth day the sun moon and stars were placed by God in that firmament. Later we read the firmament held back the waters from which the flood came down in Noah’s day (Genesis 7:11 ; 8:2-3). This is the natural reading of the passage.[3]
Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
The Dominion Mandate. The following passage has been used in opposition to the care of our planet and of the animals in it. Since we have been given dominion over it we can do what we want to with it. God also commands mankind to have children, which has been used against contraception and family planning.
Genesis 1:
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.
The Basis For Sabbath Day Blue Laws Forbidding Work. A Blue law is a type of law designed to impose moral standards on a society, particularly the adherence of Sunday as a day of worship or rest. Since God rested on the seventh day so should we (see Exodus 20:8-11)
Genesis 2:
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.
The Inferiority of Women and Homosexuals. The following passage has been used to denigrate women and homosexuals, since Eve was made from man and since another man was not made as a helpmate for Adam.
Genesis 2:
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22 and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.
Women Blamed For the Sin of Man. Because Eve was used to tempt Adam, women have been blamed for what happened when God pronounced judgment on them (verses 13-19). Because of this, women are also seen as the weaker sex, and as such, man is told to “rule over” her (verse 16).
Genesis 3:
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.
13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I ate.” 14 The Lord God said…To the woman…
“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
The Curse and Mark of Cain, the First Murder. There is a lot of violence in the Bible. Here is recorded a horrible act. One brother kills another one. This passage has been used to support racism and slavery. Christians have falsely interpreted the “curse” and the “mark” on Cain to mean that his skin was turned black and his descendants were cursed. As such it was also used as a ban on interracial marriage.
Genesis 4:
8 Cain said to Abel his brother, “Let us go out to the field.” And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him. 9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” 10 And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. 11 And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength; you shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” 13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, thou hast driven me this day away from the ground; and from thy face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me.” 15 Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him. 16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. [See Note][4]
Divine Genocide: The Flood. This is the first of many passages that show us a God who sends natural disasters upon human beings because of their sins, which is a dominant explanation for such things as droughts, and plagues of locusts.
Genesis 6:
5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.
Genesis 7 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.[See note][5]
17 The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; 20 the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man; 22 everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.
A Reaffirmation of the Dominion Mandate. Notice that God is seen to authorize the meat eating industry. And once again God commands mankind to have children, which has been used against contraception and family planning.
Genesis 9:
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
The “Divine” Authorization of Capital Punishment. This practice is being rejected by more and more civilized people. It has condemned a lot on innocent people, and disproportionately applies, most notably against black people in America.
Genesis 9:
6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. 7 And you, be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly on the earth and multiply in it.”
The Curse of Ham. This passage has been notoriously (and falsely) used to justify racism, interracial marriage and the brutal enslavement of Africans.[6]
Genesis 9:
20 Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; 21 and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, “Cursed be Canaan;a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers.” 26 He also said, “Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. 27 God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.”
Polygamy: Abraham’s Wives and Concubines. Not only does Abraham take Sarah and Hagar as his wives, he also had many concubines (Genesis 25:6). This has been used to justify polygamy. Jacob (Genesis 29:15-30; 30:1-12) and Solomon (I Kings 11:1-3), followed the same practices, as did many kings.
Genesis 16:
1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. 2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. 3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
The Palestinian Land Promise. This grant by God has been the source of the conflict over the land of Palestine from the beginning. It was reiterated to Jacob (Genesis 28:1-15) who was renamed Israel and known as the father of the Jews.
Genesis 17:
1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.” 3 Then Abram fell on his face; and God said to him, 4 “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. 8 And I will give to you, and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”
The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. More divine genocide! This passage has been used to label gay people as “Sodomites” and is the source of the oppression, beating and killing of them.[7] Notice also how cavalierly Lot is willing to hand his daughters over to be raped by them and how a slighted God turns Lot ’s wife into a pillar of salt.
Genesis 19:
1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, 2 and said, “My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the street.” 3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door. 10 But the men put forth their hands and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves groping for the door.
12 Then the men said to Lot, “Have you any one else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or any one you have in the city, bring them out of the place; 13 for we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.” 14 So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, “Up, get out of this place; for the Lord is about to destroy the city.” But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
15 When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.” 16 But he lingered; so the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the Lord being merciful to him, and they brought him forth and set him outside the city. 17 And when they had brought them forth, they said, “Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley; flee to the hills, lest you be consumed.” 18 And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords; 19 behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die. 20 Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there—is it not a little one? —and my life will be saved!” 21 He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken. 22 Make haste, escape there; for I can do nothing till you arrive there.” Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar. 23 The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar.
24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; 25 and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26 But Lot’s wife behind him looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. 27 And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the Lord; 28 and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the valley, and beheld, and lo, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace.
Incest in the Bible. Enough said.
Genesis 19:
30 Now Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar; so he dwelt in a cave with his two daughters. 31 And the first-born said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father.” 33 So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 34 And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father.” 35 So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 36 Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. 37 The first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38 The younger also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites to this day.
Abraham’s Attempted Sacrifice of Isaac. For no reason at all God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son by fire; the one previously miraculously given to him (Genesis 17:15). What God with foreknowledge would demand this and then just as he was about to slaughter his son, and say, “I was just checking to see”? Abraham would not have even thought about sacrificing his son, and protested this just like he did God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, if his moral convictions were violated by God’s demand. The silence of God about child sacrifice here is appalling. Not once does God say child sacrifice is abhorrent to him in this passage.
Genesis 22:
1 After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” 3 So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; and he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. 4 On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off. 5 Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the ass; I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.” 6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. 7 And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here am I, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” 8 Abraham said, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together.
9 When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. 10 Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” 12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”
Dinah’s Rape, Deceit, More Rape, Slaughter and Plunder. That the Bible depicts a barbarous ancient era cannot be doubted. Note that Simeon and Levi take vicious and total revenge for the rape of their sister, even to the kidnapping and raping of the wives of the Shechemites. It was another act of genocide. This story reveals one of the most barbaric acts in the Bible, although there are others, as we shall see.
Genesis 34:
1 Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the women of the land; 2 and when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized her and lay with her and humbled her. 3 And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob; he loved the maiden and spoke tenderly to her. 4 So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, “Get me this maiden for my wife.” 5 Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah; but his sons were with his cattle in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they came. 6 And Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. 7 The sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard of it; and the men were indignant and very angry, because he had wrought folly in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, for such a thing ought not to be done.
8 But Hamor spoke with them, saying, “The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter; I pray you, give her to him in marriage. 9 Make marriages with us; give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves. 10 You shall dwell with us; and the land shall be open to you; dwell and trade in it, and get property in it.” 11 Shechem also said to her father and to her brothers, “Let me find favor in your eyes, and whatever you say to me I will give. 12 Ask of me ever so much as marriage present and gift, and I will give according as you say to me; only give me the maiden to be my wife.”
13 The sons of Jacob answered Shechem and his father Hamor deceitfully, because he had defiled their sister Dinah. 14 They said to them, “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a disgrace to us. 15 Only on this condition will we consent to you: that you will become as we are and every male of you be circumcised. 16 Then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to ourselves, and we will dwell with you and become one people. 17 But if you will not listen to us and be circumcised, then we will take our daughter, and we will be gone.”
18 Their words pleased Hamor and Hamor’s son Shechem. 19 And the young man did not delay to do the thing, because he had delight in Jacob’s daughter. Now he was the most honored of all his family. 20 So Hamor and his son Shechem came to the gate of their city and spoke to the men of their city, saying, 21 “These men are friendly with us; let them dwell in the land and trade in it, for behold, the land is large enough for them; let us take their daughters in marriage, and let us give them our daughters. 22 Only on this condition will the men agree to dwell with us, to become one people: that every male among us be circumcised as they are circumcised. 23 Will not their cattle, their property and all their beasts be ours? Only let us agree with them, and they will dwell with us.” 24 And all who went out of the gate of his city hearkened to Hamor and his son Shechem; and every male was circumcised, all who went out of the gate of his city.
25 On the third day, when they were sore, two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and came upon the city unawares, and killed all the males. 26 They slew Hamor and his son Shechem with the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went away. 27 And the sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and plundered the city, because their sister had been defiled; 28 they took their flocks and their herds, their asses, and whatever was in the city and in the field; 29 all their wealth, all their little ones and their wives, all that was in the houses, they captured and made their prey. 30 Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble on me by making me odious to the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites; my numbers are few, and if they gather themselves against me and attack me, I shall be destroyed, both I and my household.” 31 But they said, “Should he treat our sister as a harlot?”
Onan’s Sin and His Death. The sin of Onanism has been used to prohibit masturbation, coitus interruptus, and contraception. It doesn’t deal with any of these things. Onan was slain by God because he did not fulfill his duties to help produce an heir for his brother. Does such a disobedient deed really deserve death? How civilized is that?
Genesis 38:
7 But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. 10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also.
Judah Takes a Tamar as a “Harlot.” Prostitution is the oldest occupation in the world, but this time the father of the Jews, with his daughter-in-law, Tamar. Notice that even though Judah hired a harlot, he wanted to punish Tamar for playing the harlot by burning her, presumably alive.[8]
Genesis 38:
13 And when Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep,” 14 she put off her widow’s garments, and put on a veil, wrapping herself up, and sat at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she had not been given to him in marriage. 15 When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot, for she had covered her face. 16 He went over to her at the road side, and said, “Come, let me come in to you,” for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said, “What will you give me, that you may come in to me?” 17 He answered, “I will send you a kid from the flock.” And she said, “Will you give me a pledge, till you send it?” 18 He said, “What pledge shall I give you?” She replied, “Your signet and your cord, and your staff that is in your hand.” So he gave them to her, and went in to her, and she conceived by him. 19 Then she arose and went away, and taking off her veil she put on the garments of her widowhood.
20 When Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman’s hand, he could not find her. 21 And he asked the men of the place, “Where is the harlot who was at Enaim by the wayside?” And they said, “No harlot has been here.” 22 So he returned to Judah, and said, “I have not found her; and also the men of the place said, ‘No harlot has been here.’” 23 And Judah replied, “Let her keep the things as her own, lest we be laughed at; you see, I sent this kid, and you could not find her.”
24 About three months later Judah was told, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; and moreover she is with child by harlotry.” And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned.” 25 As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “By the man to whom these belong, I am with child.” And she said, “Mark, I pray you, whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff.” 26 Then Judah acknowledged them and said, “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not lie with her again.
God Kills Many Egyptian Innocent Children. Notice that God desires to kill the first born in ancient Egypt, so he hardens Pharoah’s heart to do this (cf. Exodus 6:1). This was the tenth plague as seen in Exodus chapters 12-13. All of the plagues represent a total assault upon the Egyptian society and their polytheistic gods simply because they were raised to believe differently (Exodus 7-13).
Exodus 4:
21 And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. 22 And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my first-born son, 23 and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me”; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son.’”
God Seeks to Kill Moses. After calling Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, God inexplicably seeks to kill him. In this enigmatic ancient passage, Zipporah circumcises someone (Moses, or his son, the text isn’t clear) and then smears the blood of the foreskin on someone (either Moses, his son, or on God himself, the text isn’t clear) to halt the divine attack. Apparently God flies off his rockers if a piece of penis isn’t removed. Understood within the context of that day, circumcision was considered as a kind of child sacrifice in substitute, which appeased the gods by offering up blood without actually killing the first-born son.[9]
Exodus 4:
24 At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone. Then it was that she said, “You are a bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.
No Graven Images. This second commandment was used to prohibit and to destroy some great artwork.
Exodus 20:
4 “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
A Literal Six Day Creation. That the Genesis 1-2 creation account was understood by pre-scientific people to describe seven literal days can be seen when Moses speaks about the six-day work week.
Exodus 20:8-11:
“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.
The Atrocious Laws About Slavery. Surely no civilized person should accept slavery of any kind, nor any of these specific laws.
Exodus 21:
1 “Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt faithlessly with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his property (NIV).
26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free for the eye’s sake. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free for the tooth’s sake.
28 “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be clear. 29 But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. 32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
Barbaric Capital Punishment Laws. While some of these offenses are odious to us in varying degrees, civilized people today think a mandated death penalty for the following offenses is extreme, even if we don’t know whether they were all actually followed. Rather than quote them, let me merely list them. The death penalty was demanded for any rebellious son who either struck or cursed his father or his mother (Exodus 21:15, 17; Deut. 21:18-21). The following people were to be executed: anyone who kidnapped another person (presumably another Israelite, Exodus 21:16; Deut. 24:5); any owner of a bull who has a known habit of goring people who eventually kills someone (Exodus 21:28-29); witches, mediums, and sorcerers (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 20:27); shepherds who have sex with their sheep, or any beast (Exodus 22:19); anyone who sacrifices to a different god than Yahweh (Exodus 22:20); anyone who works on the Sabbath day (Exodus 31:14-15; Exodus 35:2, which happened in Numbers 15:32-36); anyone who is an adulterer (Leviticus 20:10; Deut. 22:22); any man who rapes another man’s wife when her screams could not be heard (Deut. 22:25) prostitutes, fornicators (Deut. 22:13-21); any man who sleeps with his mother, mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, another man, or sister (Leviticus 20:11-13); any man who marries both a woman and her mother, or maries his sister (Leviticus 20:14, 17); any priest’s daughter who becomes a prostitute must be burned with fire (Leviticus 21:9); blasphemers (Leviticus 24:10-16); any prophet or person who seeks to lead others astray from God (Deut. 13:1-10; if a whole town of people are leading others astray, all of the inhabitants are to be killed and the town with all of its plunder was to be burned to the ground; Deut. 13:12-18); anyone found worshipping other gods (Deut. 17:2-5); and finally, any rapist of a virgin once she was pledged to be married to another man (Deut. 22:23-27); this authorizes “honor killings,” for the virgin has dishonored her future husband. Both the rapist AND the victim were to be killed, unless the rapist does so out in the country where her screams could not be heard). Anyone who afflicts a widow or orphan, God himself will kill him (Exodus 22:22-24).
“Eye For An Eye” Passages. This is barbaric justice, period, and is still practiced in some cultures to this day. The Exodus passage below is also used by anti-abortionists in denying women the right to choose, although the context indicates the harm done that demands the death of the men is that which takes the life of the mother, not the dead miscarriage. Only a fine is demanded of the men if it’s a miscarriage.
Leviticus 24:
19 When a man causes a disfigurement in his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has disfigured a man, he shall be disfigured.
Exodus 21:
22 “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Usury Laws. Such laws as specifically stated in the Old Testament demanded a sophisticated level of gerrymandering to get around them. They didn’t prevent investment, but made the lender a joint-venturer such that he would have to share the risk. The rise of modern democratic capitalism, by contrast, has raised the standard of living in those countries who have rejected these specific laws. Other examples can be found (Exodus, 22:24; Leviticus, 25:35-37; Deuteronomy, 23:20-21; Psalm 15:5; Jeremiah 15:10; Ezekiel 18:8-9, 13, 17).
Exodus 22:
25 “If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be to him as a creditor, and you shall not exact interest from him.”
Child Sacrifice is Divinely Commanded. Exodus 22:29-30: “You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. 30 You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.”
God admitted he did this in Ezekiel 20:25-26 where he purportedly said: 25 “Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; 26 and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the Lord.”
The context of the Exodus passage concerns offerings and sacrifices, and it says God requires that first born sons are to be literally sacrificed to him. Hence, unlike other passages where there is the possibility of redemption with a substitute sacrifice (cf. Exodus 13:13; 34:10-20), none is specifically stated here. The concept of "redemption" is an interesting one that goes hand in hand with child sacrifice, because animals were substituted for the firstborn. Yet that says nothing against the idea that a better sacrifice was the firstborn child himself, and many people in the Old Testament did just that. Circumcision was probably a substitutionary child sacrifice (Exodus 4:24).
Child sacrifice should be understood within the whole concept of human sacrifice as a whole, which pleased God (Leviticus 27:28). Human sacrifice was probably only considered evil when it was done in the name of a foreign god, and doing so was punishable by death precisely because it was offered to another deity (Leviticus 20:2; 18:21 Deuteronomy 12:31 18:10; II Kings 17:17 23:10; II Chronicles 28:3 33:4-10; Ps 106:38; Isaiah 57:5,6; Jeremiah 7:31 32:35 Ezekiel 16:20,21 20:26,31 23:37,39 Acts 7:43).[10]
Child sacrifice was something that several Biblical people either did, or assisted others in doing so. Abraham, was not morally repulsed by the command itself (Genesis 22). Then there is Jepthah who probably sacrificed his daughter because of a stupid vow (Judges 11); David (II Sam. 21:7-9); Solomon and his wives (I Kings 3:16); Ahab (I Kings 16:33-34); Ahaz (II Kings 16:2-3); Hoshea (II Kings 17:7); and Manasseh (II Kings 21:6, II Chronicles 33:6). It was a problem for King Josiah ( II King 23:10), for Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7:30-31; 19:3-5; 32:35), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:20-21; 20:25-26, 30-31). The prophet Micah wonders if he should sacrifice his oldest son “as a sin offering” (6:6-8). Child sacrifice to foreign gods was so prevalent that it’s named as one of the major reasons why God sent the Babylonians to conquer Israel and forcibly take many of them as captives (II Kings 17:16-18). We even read where the King of Moab sacrificed his son which caused the Israelites to retreat in defeat. Moab’s sacrifice created a great “wrath,” (ketzef), which was an external divine force to the warriors in the story, indicating that his sacrifice caused some divinity to act on behalf of Moab. (II Kings. 3:26-27). In the New Testament God the Father sacrifices his only son (Jesus) as the central redemptive act of Christianity, and God still seeks to fulfill his lust for human sacrifice by burning humans forever in the lake of fire.
“Life is in the Blood.” Regardless of several unnecessary dietary laws themselves, the following verse was (and is) used to deny life giving blood transfusions. Enough said.
Leviticus 17:
10 “If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.
Vigilantism. The blood avenger was someone who, like bounty hunters, could track down and kill a person for killing a family member. If the murder was an accident the avenger could still kill him, unless that person stayed inside six cities of refuge and was not found outside of them. If the person could be lured or dragged out of the city the avenger could kill him.
Numbers 35:
19 The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. 20 And if he stabbed him from hatred, or hurled at him, lying in wait, so that he died, 21 or in enmity struck him down with his hand, so that he died, then he who struck the blow shall be put to death; he is a murderer; the avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death, when he meets him.
22 “But if he stabbed him suddenly without enmity, or hurled anything on him without lying in wait, 23 or used a stone, by which a man may die, and without seeing him cast it upon him, so that he died, though he was not his enemy, and did not seek his harm; 24 then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, in accordance with these ordinances; 25 and the congregation shall rescue the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, to which he had fled, and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil. 26 But if the manslayer shall at any time go beyond the bounds of his city of refuge to which he fled, 27 and the avenger of blood finds him outside the bounds of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood slays the manslayer, he shall not be guilty of blood. 28 For the man must remain in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest; but after the death of the high priest the manslayer may return to the land of his possession.
A Rape Victim Must Marry Her Attacker. Enough said.
Deuteronomy 22:
28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.”
Holy War. Most civilized people think with Union General Sherman, “War is hell.” And even though the phrase ‘holy war’ in not mentioned in the Old Testament, divinely sanctioned wars are frequently mentioned (Joshua 8:1; Judges 4:14-15; 1 Samuel 17:45; 1 Samuel 23:4; II Kings 3:18), including genocide against the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:2). The enemies of Israel were the Lord’s enemies (Judges 5:31; 1 Samuel 30:26). One of the basic images of God in the Old Testament is that he is a warrior (Exodus 15:3; Psalms 24:8; and Isaiah 42:13), and this concept is used in the New Testament to describe God’s war against the devil (Ephesians 6:10-20) and against his armies of unbelievers (Revelation 19:11-21). Many wars in the history of Christendom were justified by claims that God demanded it, as in the Crusades, and that God was on “our” side, even when professing Christian armies were fighting against each other.
Joshua 1:
1 After the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, the Lord said to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ minister, 2 “Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people, into the land which I am giving to them, to the people of Israel. 3 Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, as I promised to Moses. 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun shall be your territory. 5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you.
Jephthah Sacrifices his Daughter. What’s extremely troubling about this passage is that it’s in the Bible in the first place. It is merely reported as if these are the sorts of deeds that men did with their daughters from time to time. They are not shocked by the possibility that God might demand human sacrifice, nor that Jephthah did. And there is no trace of a condemnation from God for what he did. Also very troubling is that Jephthah makes a completely stupid vow, knowing in advance his daughter might be the first one to greet him when he returned from war, and feels compelled to fulfill it (on vows see for example, Numbers 30:3; and Deuteronomy 23:22-24).
Judges 11:
30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, 31 then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering.”
32 So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them; and the Lord gave them into his hand. 33 And he smote them from Aroer to the neighborhood of Minnith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel-keramim, with a very great slaughter. So the Ammonites were subdued before the people of Israel.
34 Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 And when he saw her, he rent his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me; for I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.” 36 And she said to him, “My father, if you have opened your mouth to the Lord, do to me according to what has gone forth from your mouth, now that the Lord has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites.” 37 And she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me; let me alone two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.” 38 And he said, “Go.” And he sent her away for two months; and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. 39 And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had made.
A Levite and his Concubine: More Rape, More Slaughter and More Kidnapping. These few chapters in the Bible describe incredible horrors. It must be read in its entirety to see how barbaric the people, God’s people, were towards each other. According to the Bible God sanctioned the near genocide of the Benjamites (Judges 20:18 ,23,28,35), leaving only 600 men who escaped. And since the people of Israel didn’t want to exterminate the Benjamites they felt obligated to keep a stupid oath they made about not giving their women to them as wives (on vows see Deuteronomy 23:21 -23). So they slaughtered every man woman and child of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead, except for four hundred virgins, and gave these virgins to the remaining Benjamites. But they still needed 200 more virgins, so the “elders of the congregation” encouraged the kidnapping of 200 wives from the virgins of Shiloh . (Judges 21:5-7). This is absolutely stunning and hideous. Where was God? Why didn’t he tell them not to do this?
Judges 19:
1 In those days, when there was no king in Israel, a certain Levite was sojourning in the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim, who took to himself a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 And his concubine became angry with him, and she went away from him to her father’s house at Bethlehem in Judah, and was there some four months. 3 Then her husband arose and went after her, to speak kindly to her and bring her back. He had with him his servant and a couple of asses. And he came to her father’s house; and when the girl’s father saw him, he came with joy to meet him. 4 And his father-in-law, the girl’s father, made him stay, and he remained with him three days; so they ate and drank, and lodged there. 5 And on the fourth day they arose early in the morning, and he prepared to go; but the girl’s father said to his son-in-law, “Strengthen your heart with a morsel of bread, and after that you may go.” 6 So the two men sat and ate and drank together; and the girl’s father said to the man, “Be pleased to spend the night, and let your heart be merry.” 7 And when the man rose up to go, his father-in-law urged him, till he lodged there again. 8 And on the fifth day he arose early in the morning to depart; and the girl’s father said, “Strengthen your heart, and tarry until the day declines.” So they ate, both of them. 9 And when the man and his concubine and his servant rose up to depart, his father-in-law, the girl’s father, said to him, “Behold, now the day has waned toward evening; pray tarry all night. Behold, the day draws to its close; lodge here and let your heart be merry; and tomorrow you shall arise early in the morning for your journey, and go home.”
10 But the man would not spend the night; he rose up and departed, and arrived opposite Jebus (that is, Jerusalem). He had with him a couple of saddled asses, and his concubine was with him. 11 When they were near Jebus, the day was far spent, and the servant said to his master, “Come now, let us turn aside to this city of the Jebusites, and spend the night in it.” 12 And his master said to him, “We will not turn aside into the city of foreigners, who do not belong to the people of Israel; but we will pass on to Gibe-ah.” 13 And he said to his servant, “Come and let us draw near to one of these places, and spend the night at Gibe-ah or at Ramah.” 14 So they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down on them near Gibe-ah, which belongs to Benjamin, 15 and they turned aside there, to go in and spend the night at Gibe-ah. And he went in and sat down in the open square of the city; for no man took them into his house to spend the night.
16 And behold, an old man was coming from his work in the field at evening; the man was from the hill country of Ephraim, and he was sojourning in Gibe-ah; the men of the place were Benjaminites. 17 And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the wayfarer in the open square of the city; and the old man said, “Where are you going? and whence do you come?” 18 And he said to him, “We are passing from Bethlehem in Judah to the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim, from which I come. I went to Bethlehem in Judah; and I am going to my home; and nobody takes me into his house. 19 We have straw and provender for our asses, with bread and wine for me and your maidservant and the young man with your servants; there is no lack of anything.” 20 And the old man said, “Peace be to you; I will care for all your wants; only, do not spend the night in the square.” 21 So he brought him into his house, and gave the asses provender; and they washed their feet, and ate and drank.
22 As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, base fellows, beset the house round about, beating on the door; and they said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.” 23 And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brethren, do not act so wickedly; seeing that this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing. 24 Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing.” 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them; and they knew her, and abused her all night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. 26 And as morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master was, till it was light.
27 And her master rose up in the morning, and when he opened the doors of the house and went out to go on his way, behold, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up, let us be going.” But there was no answer. Then he put her upon the ass; and the man rose up and went away to his home. 29 And when he entered his house, he took a knife, and laying hold of his concubine he divided her, limb by limb, into twelve pieces, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel. 30 And all who saw it said, “Such a thing has never happened or been seen from the day that the people of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt until this day; consider it, take counsel, and speak.”
Judges 20:
1 Then all the people of Israel came out, from Dan to Beer-sheba, including the land of Gilead, and the congregation assembled as one man to the Lord at Mizpah. 2 And the chiefs of all the people, of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, four hundred thousand men on foot that drew the sword. 3 (Now the Benjaminites heard that the people of Israel had gone up to Mizpah.) And the people of Israel said, “Tell us, how was this wickedness brought to pass?” 4 And the Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered and said, “I came to Gibe-ah that belongs to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to spend the night. 5 And the men of Gibe-ah rose against me, and beset the house round about me by night; they meant to kill me, and they ravished my concubine, and she is dead. 6 And I took my concubine and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel; for they have committed abomination and wantonness in Israel. 7 Behold, you people of Israel, all of you, give your advice and counsel here.”
8 And all the people arose as one man, saying, “We will not any of us go to his tent, and none of us will return to his house. 9 But now this is what we will do to Gibe-ah: we will go up against it by lot, 10 and we will take ten men of a hundred throughout all the tribes of Israel, and a hundred of a thousand, and a thousand of ten thousand, to bring provisions for the people, that when they come they may requite Gibe-ah of Benjamin, for all the wanton crime which they have committed in Israel.” 11 So all the men of Israel gathered against the city, united as one man.
12 And the tribes of Israel sent men through all the tribe of Benjamin, saying, “What wickedness is this that has taken place among you? 13 Now therefore give up the men, the base fellows in Gibe-ah, that we may put them to death, and put away evil from Israel.” But the Benjaminites would not listen to the voice of their brethren, the people of Israel. 14 And the Benjaminites came together out of the cities to Gibe-ah, to go out to battle against the people of Israel. 15 And the Benjaminites mustered out of their cities on that day twenty-six thousand men that drew the sword, besides the inhabitants of Gibe-ah, who mustered seven hundred picked men. 16 Among all these were seven hundred picked men who were left-handed; every one could sling a stone at a hair, and not miss. 17 And the men of Israel, apart from Benjamin, mustered four hundred thousand men that drew sword; all these were men of war.
18 The people of Israel arose and went up to Bethel, and inquired of God, “Which of us shall go up first to battle against the Benjaminites?” And the Lord said, “Judah shall go up first.”
19 Then the people of Israel rose in the morning, and encamped against Gibe-ah. 20 And the men of Israel went out to battle against Benjamin; and the men of Israel drew up the battle line against them at Gibe-ah. 21 The Benjaminites came out of Gibe-ah, and felled to the ground on that day twenty-two thousand men of the Israelites. 22 But the people, the men of Israel, took courage, and again formed the battle line in the same place where they had formed it on the first day. 23 And the people of Israel went up and wept before the Lord until the evening; and they inquired of the Lord, “Shall we again draw near to battle against our brethren the Benjaminites?” And the Lord said, “Go up against them.”
24 So the people of Israel came near against the Benjaminites the second day. 25 And Benjamin went against them out of Gibe-ah the second day, and felled to the ground eighteen thousand men of the people of Israel; all these were men who drew the sword. 26 Then all the people of Israel, the whole army, went up and came to Bethel and wept; they sat there before the Lord, and fasted that day until evening, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord. 27 And the people of Israel inquired of the Lord (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days, 28 and Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, ministered before it in those days), saying, “Shall we yet again go out to battle against our brethren the Benjaminites, or shall we cease?” And the Lord said, “Go up; for tomorrow I will give them into your hand.”
29 So Israel set men in ambush round about Gibe-ah. 30 And the people of Israel went up against the Benjaminites on the third day, and set themselves in array against Gibe-ah, as at other times. 31 And the Benjaminites went out against the people, and were drawn away from the city; and as at other times they began to smite and kill some of the people, in the highways, one of which goes up to Bethel and the other to Gibe-ah, and in the open country, about thirty men of Israel. 32 And the Benjaminites said, “They are routed before us, as at the first.” But the men of Israel said, “Let us flee, and draw them away from the city to the highways.” 33 And all the men of Israel rose up out of their place, and set themselves in array at Baal-tamar; and the men of Israel who were in ambush rushed out of their place west of Geba. 34 And there came against Gibe-ah ten thousand picked men out of all Israel, and the battle was hard; but the Benjaminites did not know that disaster was close upon them. 35 And the Lord defeated Benjamin before Israel; and the men of Israel destroyed twenty-five thousand one hundred men of Benjamin that day; all these were men who drew the sword. 36 So the Benjaminites saw that they were defeated.
The men of Israel gave ground to Benjamin, because they trusted to the men in ambush whom they had set against Gibe-ah. 37 And the men in ambush made haste and rushed upon Gibe-ah; the men in ambush moved out and smote all the city with the edge of the sword. 38 Now the appointed signal between the men of Israel and the men in ambush was that when they made a great cloud of smoke rise up out of the city 39 the men of Israel should turn in battle. Now Benjamin had begun to smite and kill about thirty men of Israel; they said, “Surely they are smitten down before us, as in the first battle.” 40 But when the signal began to rise out of the city in a column of smoke, the Benjaminites looked behind them; and behold, the whole of the city went up in smoke to heaven. 41 Then the men of Israel turned, and the men of Benjamin were dismayed, for they saw that disaster was close upon them. 42 Therefore they turned their backs before the men of Israel in the direction of the wilderness; but the battle overtook them, and those who came out of the cities destroyed them in the midst of them. 43 Cutting down the Benjaminites, they pursued them and trod them down from Nohah as far as opposite Gibe-ah on the east. 44 Eighteen thousand men of Benjamin fell, all of them men of valor. 45 And they turned and fled toward the wilderness to the rock of Rimmon; five thousand men of them were cut down in the highways, and they were pursued hard to Gidom, and two thousand men of them were slain. 46 So all who fell that day of Benjamin were twenty-five thousand men that drew the sword, all of them men of valor. 47 But six hundred men turned and fled toward the wilderness to the rock of Rimmon, and abode at the rock of Rimmon four months. 48 And the men of Israel turned back against the Benjaminites, and smote them with the edge of the sword, men and beasts and all that they found. And all the towns which they found they set on fire.
Judges 21:
1 Now the men of Israel had sworn at Mizpah, “No one of us shall give his daughter in marriage to Benjamin.” 2 And the people came to Bethel, and sat there till evening before God, and they lifted up their voices and wept bitterly. 3 And they said, “O Lord, the God of Israel, why has this come to pass in Israel, that there should be today one tribe lacking in Israel?” 4 And on the morrow the people rose early, and built there an altar, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. 5 And the people of Israel said, “Which of all the tribes of Israel did not come up in the assembly to the Lord?” For they had taken a great oath concerning him who did not come up to the Lord to Mizpah, saying, “He shall be put to death.” 6 And the people of Israel had compassion for Benjamin their brother, and said, “One tribe is cut off from Israel this day. 7 What shall we do for wives for those who are left, since we have sworn by the Lord that we will not give them any of our daughters for wives?”
8 And they said, “What one is there of the tribes of Israel that did not come up to the Lord to Mizpah?” And behold, no one had come to the camp from Jabesh-gilead, to the assembly. 9 For when the people were mustered, behold, not one of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead was there. 10 So the congregation sent thither twelve thousand of their bravest men, and commanded them, “Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword; also the women and the little ones. 11 This is what you shall do; every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy.” 12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins who had not known man by lying with him; and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
13 Then the whole congregation sent word to the Benjaminites who were at the rock of Rimmon, and proclaimed peace to them. 14 And Benjamin returned at that time; and they gave them the women whom they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-gilead; but they did not suffice for them. 15 And the people had compassion on Benjamin because the Lord had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.
16 Then the elders of the congregation said, “What shall we do for wives for those who are left, since the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?” 17 And they said, “There must be an inheritance for the survivors of Benjamin, that a tribe be not blotted out from Israel. 18 Yet we cannot give them wives of our daughters.” For the people of Israel had sworn, “Cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin.” 19 So they said, “Behold, there is the yearly feast of the Lord at Shiloh, which is north of Bethel, on the east of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.” 20 And they commanded the Benjaminites, saying, “Go and lie in wait in the vineyards, 21 and watch; if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in the dances, then come out of the vineyards and seize each man his wife from the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin. 22 And when their fathers or their brothers come to complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Grant them graciously to us; because we did not take for each man of them his wife in battle, neither did you give them to them, else you would now be guilty.’” 23 And the Benjaminites did so, and took their wives, according to their number, from the dancers whom they carried off; then they went and returned to their inheritance, and rebuilt the towns, and dwelt in them. 24 And the people of Israel departed from there at that time, every man to his tribe and family, and they went out from there every man to his inheritance.
The Genocide of the Amalekites. This is an appalling act of “divinely commanded” genocide.
I Samuel 15:
1 And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore hearken to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”
4 So Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand men on foot, and ten thousand men of Judah. 5 And Saul came to the city of Amalek, and lay in wait in the valley. 6 And Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart, go down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7 And Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; all that was despised and worthless they utterly destroyed.
10 The word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I repent that I have made Saul king; for he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments.” And Samuel was angry; and he cried to the Lord all night. 12 And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning; and it was told Samuel, “Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself and turned, and passed on, and went down to Gilgal.” 13 And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed be you to the Lord; I have performed the commandment of the Lord.” 14 And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” 15 Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.”
16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Stop! I will tell you what the Lord said to me this night.” And he said to him, “Say on.”
17 And Samuel said, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop on the spoil, and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?” 20 And Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.” 22 And Samuel said,
“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,he has also rejected you from being king.”
24 And Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned; for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, I pray, pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord.” 26 And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel.” 27 As Samuel turned to go away, Saul laid hold upon the skirt of his robe, and it tore. 28 And Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent.” 30 Then he said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord your God.” 31 So Samuel turned back after Saul; and Saul worshiped the Lord.
32 Then Samuel said, “Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.” And Agag came to him cheerfully. Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” 33 And Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.
Putting Away Foreign Wives. Women were pretty much helpless in ancient cultures without a husband of father to care for them, and simply because Israelites had married foreign wives they were divorced.
Ezra 10:
1 While Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, a very great assembly of men, women, and children, gathered to him out of Israel; for the people wept bitterly. 2 And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, addressed Ezra: “We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. 3 Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. 4 Arise, for it is your task, and we are with you; be strong and do it.” 5 Then Ezra arose and made the leading priests and Levites and all Israel take oath that they would do as had been said. So they took the oath.
7 And a proclamation was made throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all the returned exiles that they should assemble at Jerusalem, 8 and that if any one did not come within three days, by order of the officials and the elders all his property should be forfeited, and he himself banned from the congregation of the exiles.
9 Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days; 10 And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have trespassed and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. 11 Now then make confession to the Lord the God of your fathers, and do his will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.” 12 Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, “It is so; we must do as you have said. 16 Then the returned exiles did so... 44 All these had married foreign women, and they put them away with their children.
Dashing Children Against the Rock.
Psalm 137:
8 O daughter of Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall he be who requites you
with what you have done to us!
9 Happy shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!
Beating and Spanking Children. This verse has been used by abusive fathers. We now have more enlightened ways of disciplining children.[11]
Proverbs 13:
24 He who spares the rod hates his son,
but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] A whole host of these and many more passages can be found at http://www.evilbible.com/, and http://www.usbible.com/usbible/default.htm.
[2] The following rationalizations are used by Christians about the violence found in the Bible. Whether they succeed or not I’ll let the reader decide after reading this. (Thanks to Andrew Atkinson for some suggestions on this):
1 It wasn't sanctioned by God himself. Sinful humans committed these atrocities in disobedience to God.
2 God was accommodating to their hardened hearts.
3 The Israelites were better morally than the surrounding cultures.
4 The people of Israel needed a pure bloodline to bring in the Messiah.
5 The Bible (especially the Old Testament) does indeed contain a lot of barbarisms, but through it all God was progressively leading believers to gradually come to civilized notions about morality, which were either finally realized in Jesus, or later in the church down through the centuries.
6 What God makes or creates he has the right to destroy, he is the potter we are the clay. God gives life so he can take it away. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills so he can take our possessions away.
7. Because of our sin and depraved nature we deserve eternal torment, so anything that happens to us or that God does to us we deserve anyway. We should be thankful that God does not do horrible things to all of us all the time, thank God he is so merciful!
8. Many of the laws in the Old Testament were either not ordained by God himself, or not acted upon in reality.
9. What God does can be a mystery and we are not in a position to question his actions. Gods ways are above are ways.
10. Our depraved nature makes us unfit cognitively to judge moral claims. What God does is good by definition.
11. God needed to do some ethnic cleansing and trim the fat from society, the ends justifies the means.
12. God was being merciful to the children by killing them because if he had not done so then they would’ve grown up to be heathens and gone to hell.
13. All of these seemingly horrible acts work out for the greater good some how.
14. That was the Old Testament now we are under a new covenant. Civil, Ceremonial, moral law distinctions.
15. What about the good things God has done?
[3] For a good discussion of this account see Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984), pp. 9-114.
[4] Where does Cain get his wife, who is he afraid of, and how is it possible to build what’s called “a city” when they were just a small family? None of these questions can be answered with a straightforward reading of this text.
[5] There is a discrepancy in how long the flood lasted. Was it 40 days ( 7:17 ), 150 days ( 7:24 ), or one year (compare 7:11 with 8:13 )?
[6] For two book length treatments of this see Stephen R. Haynes, Noah's Curse : The Biblical Justification of American Slavery, and David M. Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
[7] This passage does not support the claim that God condemns homosexuality per se, since any forceful rape of another human being is wrong. Besides according to Ezekiel their sin was that they did not help the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48 -50).
[8] Jonathan Kirsch titled his book depicting the horrible acts in the Old Testament by this incident, The Harlot By The Side of the Road (Ballantine Books).
[9] For a good discussion of this passage see Jonathan Kirsch, The Harlot By The Side of the Road (Ballantine Books), pp. 145-179.
[10] To read a scholarly defence of this view see, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities, (Walter De Gruyter Inc., 2004).
[11] See for instance Thomas Gordon, Parent Effectiveness Training: The Proven Program for Raising Responsible Children (Three Rivers Press, 2000).
March 05, 2008
A Snapshot of the Thinking Skills on TWeb
If anyone wants to know why I don't link to TWeb where Holding squats, check out the thinking skills they exhibit. Here is a thread where Holding asked people to come up with mock slogans about DC. He's fixated on us. I'm Doubting John. You can pick up the debate that ensued on this page, and read though the next few pages by successively clicking on the next numbered one.
Alzheimer's Illness, God and Science: Who Get's the Credit for a Cure?
Shygetz does it again. Here he is in top form responding to a Christian named Leslie F Massucco (LFM), who attempted to share why God allows Alzheimer's:
LFM: Maybe this disease was everyone’s lesson on how much we can learn to be patient, kind, and use our ability to stretch our capacity of love and except and embrace our love ones, even if they changed into different people.
The person suffering from the disease doesn't get to learn this lovely lesson. So God is making that person suffer because you needed to learn how to be nice. Is that justice from your just God?
LFM: Happy can be relative in any form, and when he was ready, and our souls grew, he took them home.
Sure, happiness is relative, but what does that have to do with anything? You're saying that God made your father ill so you could learn to be more happy than when he first got the illness, but still less happy than before he got sick? And that's a good thing? And that lesson was worth your father's suffering? Wow. Just, wow.
According to your Bible, when Jesus walked the Earth, he cured people of disease rather than let them learn their lesson from God. Sometimes He did it reluctantly (Matthew 15:21-28), apparently changing His mind during the process--if Christ had wanted to show His glory or some such, why would he be reluctant? Why shouldn't God want to show His glory by healing the AD patients? Where was your father's miracle cure?
You don't think, somewhere in your darkest heart of hearts, that this is just a terribly transparent post hoc rationalization of a tragic event? I mean, seriously, how ornate a shape are you willing to twist into to avoid coming to the obvious conclusion; there is no lesson that could be learned this way that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God could not teach you more kindly in some other manner. Hell, he could make Alzheimer's curable by love--therefore, once you learned your "lesson", you father would be well again. But Alzheimer's is not curable by love. It is fatal, both directly and indirectly, and currently incurable. Here endeth the lesson.
If and when the cure comes, I guarantee you it won't be from the prayers of the faithful or the wisdom of the Church. It will be from the hard work of scientists and medical doctors, most of whom will either be non-believers or believers in the "wrong" religion, well-funded by charitable people and government. Next time you drop your tithe into the tray at church, think about that. They promise you miracles; we are the only ones actually bringing in the results.
And when that cure finally comes down, you and those like you will fall to your knees and humbly thank a God who sat on high for millennia and did nothing about it while multitudes of families were destroyed, both emotionally and financially, by this disease. Yet you will not hold Him accountable for his millenia of inaction, but merely give Him credit for His invisible, inaudible, and completely indetectable role in finding the cure now. Meanwhile, you won't be able to even name a single scientist who actually did the work to bring the cure about.
All the while, some of you will continue to struggle long and hard to ensure that the next generation of scientists are unable to ever find cures like that because they were never able to learn the foundations of biological science, being as they are in conflict with the more literal interpretations of the Bible.
Sometimes in my darker moments, I think that there should be an "opt-out" contract presented to people before they go in for evidence-based medical care. Either you're in the Enlightenment, or you can go down the street to the barber and have him bleed you with leeches. You can't have both.
LFM: Maybe this disease was everyone’s lesson on how much we can learn to be patient, kind, and use our ability to stretch our capacity of love and except and embrace our love ones, even if they changed into different people.
The person suffering from the disease doesn't get to learn this lovely lesson. So God is making that person suffer because you needed to learn how to be nice. Is that justice from your just God?
LFM: Happy can be relative in any form, and when he was ready, and our souls grew, he took them home.
Sure, happiness is relative, but what does that have to do with anything? You're saying that God made your father ill so you could learn to be more happy than when he first got the illness, but still less happy than before he got sick? And that's a good thing? And that lesson was worth your father's suffering? Wow. Just, wow.
According to your Bible, when Jesus walked the Earth, he cured people of disease rather than let them learn their lesson from God. Sometimes He did it reluctantly (Matthew 15:21-28), apparently changing His mind during the process--if Christ had wanted to show His glory or some such, why would he be reluctant? Why shouldn't God want to show His glory by healing the AD patients? Where was your father's miracle cure?
You don't think, somewhere in your darkest heart of hearts, that this is just a terribly transparent post hoc rationalization of a tragic event? I mean, seriously, how ornate a shape are you willing to twist into to avoid coming to the obvious conclusion; there is no lesson that could be learned this way that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God could not teach you more kindly in some other manner. Hell, he could make Alzheimer's curable by love--therefore, once you learned your "lesson", you father would be well again. But Alzheimer's is not curable by love. It is fatal, both directly and indirectly, and currently incurable. Here endeth the lesson.
If and when the cure comes, I guarantee you it won't be from the prayers of the faithful or the wisdom of the Church. It will be from the hard work of scientists and medical doctors, most of whom will either be non-believers or believers in the "wrong" religion, well-funded by charitable people and government. Next time you drop your tithe into the tray at church, think about that. They promise you miracles; we are the only ones actually bringing in the results.
And when that cure finally comes down, you and those like you will fall to your knees and humbly thank a God who sat on high for millennia and did nothing about it while multitudes of families were destroyed, both emotionally and financially, by this disease. Yet you will not hold Him accountable for his millenia of inaction, but merely give Him credit for His invisible, inaudible, and completely indetectable role in finding the cure now. Meanwhile, you won't be able to even name a single scientist who actually did the work to bring the cure about.
All the while, some of you will continue to struggle long and hard to ensure that the next generation of scientists are unable to ever find cures like that because they were never able to learn the foundations of biological science, being as they are in conflict with the more literal interpretations of the Bible.
Sometimes in my darker moments, I think that there should be an "opt-out" contract presented to people before they go in for evidence-based medical care. Either you're in the Enlightenment, or you can go down the street to the barber and have him bleed you with leeches. You can't have both.
March 03, 2008
Child Sacrifice And a Very Nasty God...Very Nasty!
We’ve been discussing child sacrifice here, and at the risk of being accused that I’m changing topics, let me show exactly what kind of God Christians are trying to defend.
We left off discussing Micah 6:6-8, where the divinely inspired prophet wrote these words:
It just appears to me that many Christians take a caviler approach to the extremely nasty God they claim to worship, when he's supposed to be perfected love itself.
Christian, how do you reconcile that view you have of your perfectly loving and reasonable God with the following passage, where it only seems to condemn child sacrifice to "other" gods:
Besides, there are much better ways to handle such things, out of love. Merely send them a prophet who can do great miracles in their midst and let him tell them this is plainly forbidden. Better yet, why not just make one of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not sacrifice or kill any man woman or child to me," and say it as often as needed without also allowing the conflicting messages and lack of condemnation for such practices elsewhere in the Bible, like asking Abraham to do it and not also condemn such a practice, or like letting Jepthah do it without sending a prophet to him to tell him it’s forbidden?
The God we're talking about is based upon the reflections and musings of an ancient superstitious barbaric people, plain and simple.
This is the best and simplest explanation for what we find in the Bible.
We left off discussing Micah 6:6-8, where the divinely inspired prophet wrote these words:
With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow down before God on high. Should I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Does the Lord want a thousand rams, with myriads of rivers of fat? Should I give by oldest son as a sin offering, the fruit of my belly as a sin offering for my soul? He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.What Micah was doing is trying to find the very best ways to please God, so he mentioned what he considered the best things. And it says he considered sacrificing a child along with the other sacrifices God demanded in order to please him. The fact that God tells Micah he only wants justice and mercy does not undercut that Micah believed child sacrifice was acceptable to God, for it’s listed among other types of sacrifices that ARE pleasing to God. Nor does it undercut that God demanded child sacrifices (Exodus 22:29; Ezekiel 20: 25-26). God certainly didn’t condemn Jepthah, and he even requested it of Abraham with no condemnation against the practice. God didn't even chastise Micah for suggesting such a thing, which is what any perfectly good God would do. I would say so to Micah, and I’m not a perfectly good God!
It just appears to me that many Christians take a caviler approach to the extremely nasty God they claim to worship, when he's supposed to be perfected love itself.
Christian, how do you reconcile that view you have of your perfectly loving and reasonable God with the following passage, where it only seems to condemn child sacrifice to "other" gods:
From Jeremiah 19:Christian, how do you reconcile the God of reason, the God of perfect love, with the ways he dealt with people who worship other gods? This is some very nasty stuff here. He will make them eat the flesh of their children and neighbors! And how do you reconcile the number of lives lost as a result of God's actions with the number of children sacrificed? Let's see, a few children are being killed, so I'll slaughter them all!?!? As a result of God’s actions many more children will die and/or be fatherless, and/or be eaten. It does not make any sense at all. What difference does it make to God whether people sacrifice their children or they eat them? In either case innocent children are still being killed!
"You shall say, ‘Hear the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon this place that the ears of every one who hears of it will tingle. 4 Because the people have forsaken me, and have profaned this place by burning incense in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, 5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; 6 therefore, behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaughter. 7 And in this place I will make void the plans of Judah and Jerusalem, and will cause their people to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hand of those who seek their life. I will give their dead bodies for food to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the earth. 8 And I will make this city a horror, a thing to be hissed at; every one who passes by it will be horrified and will hiss because of all its disasters. 9 And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and every one shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.’
Besides, there are much better ways to handle such things, out of love. Merely send them a prophet who can do great miracles in their midst and let him tell them this is plainly forbidden. Better yet, why not just make one of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not sacrifice or kill any man woman or child to me," and say it as often as needed without also allowing the conflicting messages and lack of condemnation for such practices elsewhere in the Bible, like asking Abraham to do it and not also condemn such a practice, or like letting Jepthah do it without sending a prophet to him to tell him it’s forbidden?
The God we're talking about is based upon the reflections and musings of an ancient superstitious barbaric people, plain and simple.
This is the best and simplest explanation for what we find in the Bible.
Alzheimer's and God's Wrath
March 3, 2008 – At the top of the list of debilitating, incurable diseases humankind seeks to eradicate is the disease we call Alzheimer's Disease. In the quest to cure the ailment, an interesting find has been made by Dr. E.J. Jacobson, PH.D, M.D. and Dr. Jesus Christianson, PH.D, M.D. Both men reside and work in the city of Columbus, Ohio, home to the renowned Columbus Center for Alzheimer's Research. In addition to being medical doctors, these men are Baptist ministers and personal friends of fellow pastor and Republican presidential hopeful, Mike Huckabee.
When asked about their progress in search for a cure to Alzheimer’s, Dr. Christianson said, “Alzheimer’s disease is caused by blockages of a certain protein called beta-amyloid that accumulates between nerve cells of the brain. While there is still much to learn, we are confident that one day the disease will be better understood, and possibly even cured.” Dr. Jacobson then added: “But physicians for so long have been looking to modern medicine for a cure. We should have been looking to God’s Word to consider why the disease surfaced to begin with. The answer was right there all along.”
As our investigating team inquired further, the doctors continued to impress us with their immense medical and biblical knowledge. The most memorable moment during the interview came when Dr. Jacobson handed us a letter, in which was explained the position of both Dr. Christianson and himself. The letter was a response to an email inquiry. Reprinted here with permission from the fundamentalist Christian quarterly known as Christian Medicine Today, we have the position of the doctors…
”Dear Dr. Jacobson,
As a woman of faith, I find it especially trying to face Alzheimers disease and what it has done to my family. It stole my mothers’ identity over a six year period. She passed away last year at age sixty six. Too early for her to go.
It has been hard on us. It was hard to watch my mother deteriorate like that. Facing the usual trials that come with life, like for example why God allows this to happen, is bad enough.
Can you give me a laymen version of what Alzheimers is and why it attacks some people and not others? And can you tell me how much closer you are to finding a cure? Thank you ahead of time.
In Christian love,
Tina Richards, Lovelady, Texas”
Dr. Jacobson responds…
Dear sister Richards,
I am delighted you took the time to write me about this gravely important topic, and I am more than happy to give you an answer.
Alzheimer’s Disease is caused by a build-up of proteins in the brain over time. But there is more to this story than just medical knowledge and terminology. Being that we are not secular, but Christian doctors, we are obliged by God to reject any evidences for anything that even remotely contradicts the Scriptures and any notion not already found in the Scriptures. We have done countless hours of scientific research on this disease, but since we are bound to the Bible as our sole authority, none of the scientific findings are important. Fasting, prayerful meditations, Scripture readings, and supplications to God are all that is important. As we have done on the issue of creation science and determining the age of the earth, so we have done here: we put our research away and just consulted the Bible and let that be our guide. What we found amazed us!
As you well know, Alzheimer’s disease takes away a person’s knowledge, will, and resolve of moral character, as well as their relationships with their family and everyone they know (or knew). This seems to put God in the position of not being able to judge victims of Alzheimer’s for their actions, thoughts, or words. But the Bible says we are always judged by our actions, thoughts, and words (2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 4:12; Matthew 12:37)—and God’s Word cannot be wrong at any time (John 10:35). In the Bible, no one is ever unaccountable to God at any point or under any covenant, and that hasn’t changed today.
Unaccountability is a myth, just like a so-called “age of accountability,” an alleged “grace period” for children wherein God waits to start judging them until they are older. No such grace period exists. It’s not found anywhere in the Bible. Everyone is accountable to God at all times. But Alzheimer’s wipes out the rational faculties of the brain, so how can those afflicted with the condition still be held accountable? Has God forgotten about these poor souls? No, God forgets nothing. Everything He does is done for a purpose, and what this means is that when someone gets Alzheimer’s disease, God intentionally gives it to them for the express purpose of making them unable to repent.
You might be asking, “Where in Scripture do we have an example of God not letting someone repent?” We have a number of examples, one of which we'll look at here that parallels your mother’s case closely. It is the case of Hophne and Phinehas, whom God kept in a state of impenitence so he could feel justified in killing them for their sexual perversion…
“Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.” (I Samuel 2:25)
When rebuked, God made sure of it that both Eli’s sons would not be receptive to the words of their wise father. Why? Because God wanted them dead—plain and simple. God took away their resolve to repent, and we had the same situation with your mother. She got Alzheimer’s and couldn’t repent anymore than Hophni and Phinehaz could.
Now your mother sounds like a sweet person. I’m sure she was. But you may have to accept that she had a side to her that you never saw.
Being a Christian, you know the kind of God we serve. The slightest little mistake sends him into a soul-crushing rage. He even keeps a logbook of every single sin we ever committed and won’t erase a single one without a holy bloodbath, siphoned from the veins of a Jewish zombie who hung on a tree all day. So it wouldn’t surprise me if, like sexually immoral Hophni and Phinehas, God struck your mother with a case of Alzheimer’s for an immoral phase, or a single immoral act committed earlier in her lifetime. Perhaps she served as a mild-manored sex-toy for soldiers in the Armed Forces? Perhaps she danced on tables in Reno, shaking her behind for the menfolk to the “hip” tunes of Little Louie and The Shoeshine Boys? I’m afraid we’ll never know the specifics—and maybe that’s for the best.
That your mother was a promiscuous trollop seems to be the only logical explanation we can draw as to why your mindless mother could no longer respond to the command to repent and confess her sins of go-go girl harlotry from years back (or any other sin for that matter). Too bad for her, just one unwashed sin will be enough to keep her out of heaven. Because she couldn’t continually repent and pray for forgiveness like the Bible demands (I John 1:7), and because she no longer had faith to please God anymore (Hebrews 11:6), she left this life to fulfill her destiny of being ripped apart in the ravenous jaws of hungry, Kujo-like demons in the lowermost bowels of Hell.
Nothing can be done for your mother now. It’s too late for her. But it’s not too late for you to learn from her errors by repenting of any skanky “catting around” you did in your youth before you end up losing your mind and are turned into a hell-bound automaton like she was. But don’t despair. Truth be told, we’re all in a lot of trouble—with the kind of God we serve, we all better hope we don’t die between prayers!
As to how close we are to finding a cure for the disease, we’re nowhere close. But that may well be a blasphemous question on your part – just as our trying to find a cure for Alzheimer’s may be a work of the devil on our part – since it is a known fact that God very often punishes his people with plagues.
Pray for us and we’ll pray for you. The more we beg, the happier God is!
In His Grace,
Dr. E.J. Jacobson
(JH)
When asked about their progress in search for a cure to Alzheimer’s, Dr. Christianson said, “Alzheimer’s disease is caused by blockages of a certain protein called beta-amyloid that accumulates between nerve cells of the brain. While there is still much to learn, we are confident that one day the disease will be better understood, and possibly even cured.” Dr. Jacobson then added: “But physicians for so long have been looking to modern medicine for a cure. We should have been looking to God’s Word to consider why the disease surfaced to begin with. The answer was right there all along.”
As our investigating team inquired further, the doctors continued to impress us with their immense medical and biblical knowledge. The most memorable moment during the interview came when Dr. Jacobson handed us a letter, in which was explained the position of both Dr. Christianson and himself. The letter was a response to an email inquiry. Reprinted here with permission from the fundamentalist Christian quarterly known as Christian Medicine Today, we have the position of the doctors…
”Dear Dr. Jacobson,
As a woman of faith, I find it especially trying to face Alzheimers disease and what it has done to my family. It stole my mothers’ identity over a six year period. She passed away last year at age sixty six. Too early for her to go.
It has been hard on us. It was hard to watch my mother deteriorate like that. Facing the usual trials that come with life, like for example why God allows this to happen, is bad enough.
Can you give me a laymen version of what Alzheimers is and why it attacks some people and not others? And can you tell me how much closer you are to finding a cure? Thank you ahead of time.
In Christian love,
Tina Richards, Lovelady, Texas”
Dr. Jacobson responds…
Dear sister Richards,
I am delighted you took the time to write me about this gravely important topic, and I am more than happy to give you an answer.
Alzheimer’s Disease is caused by a build-up of proteins in the brain over time. But there is more to this story than just medical knowledge and terminology. Being that we are not secular, but Christian doctors, we are obliged by God to reject any evidences for anything that even remotely contradicts the Scriptures and any notion not already found in the Scriptures. We have done countless hours of scientific research on this disease, but since we are bound to the Bible as our sole authority, none of the scientific findings are important. Fasting, prayerful meditations, Scripture readings, and supplications to God are all that is important. As we have done on the issue of creation science and determining the age of the earth, so we have done here: we put our research away and just consulted the Bible and let that be our guide. What we found amazed us!
As you well know, Alzheimer’s disease takes away a person’s knowledge, will, and resolve of moral character, as well as their relationships with their family and everyone they know (or knew). This seems to put God in the position of not being able to judge victims of Alzheimer’s for their actions, thoughts, or words. But the Bible says we are always judged by our actions, thoughts, and words (2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 4:12; Matthew 12:37)—and God’s Word cannot be wrong at any time (John 10:35). In the Bible, no one is ever unaccountable to God at any point or under any covenant, and that hasn’t changed today.
Unaccountability is a myth, just like a so-called “age of accountability,” an alleged “grace period” for children wherein God waits to start judging them until they are older. No such grace period exists. It’s not found anywhere in the Bible. Everyone is accountable to God at all times. But Alzheimer’s wipes out the rational faculties of the brain, so how can those afflicted with the condition still be held accountable? Has God forgotten about these poor souls? No, God forgets nothing. Everything He does is done for a purpose, and what this means is that when someone gets Alzheimer’s disease, God intentionally gives it to them for the express purpose of making them unable to repent.
You might be asking, “Where in Scripture do we have an example of God not letting someone repent?” We have a number of examples, one of which we'll look at here that parallels your mother’s case closely. It is the case of Hophne and Phinehas, whom God kept in a state of impenitence so he could feel justified in killing them for their sexual perversion…
“Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.” (I Samuel 2:25)
When rebuked, God made sure of it that both Eli’s sons would not be receptive to the words of their wise father. Why? Because God wanted them dead—plain and simple. God took away their resolve to repent, and we had the same situation with your mother. She got Alzheimer’s and couldn’t repent anymore than Hophni and Phinehaz could.
Now your mother sounds like a sweet person. I’m sure she was. But you may have to accept that she had a side to her that you never saw.
Being a Christian, you know the kind of God we serve. The slightest little mistake sends him into a soul-crushing rage. He even keeps a logbook of every single sin we ever committed and won’t erase a single one without a holy bloodbath, siphoned from the veins of a Jewish zombie who hung on a tree all day. So it wouldn’t surprise me if, like sexually immoral Hophni and Phinehas, God struck your mother with a case of Alzheimer’s for an immoral phase, or a single immoral act committed earlier in her lifetime. Perhaps she served as a mild-manored sex-toy for soldiers in the Armed Forces? Perhaps she danced on tables in Reno, shaking her behind for the menfolk to the “hip” tunes of Little Louie and The Shoeshine Boys? I’m afraid we’ll never know the specifics—and maybe that’s for the best.
That your mother was a promiscuous trollop seems to be the only logical explanation we can draw as to why your mindless mother could no longer respond to the command to repent and confess her sins of go-go girl harlotry from years back (or any other sin for that matter). Too bad for her, just one unwashed sin will be enough to keep her out of heaven. Because she couldn’t continually repent and pray for forgiveness like the Bible demands (I John 1:7), and because she no longer had faith to please God anymore (Hebrews 11:6), she left this life to fulfill her destiny of being ripped apart in the ravenous jaws of hungry, Kujo-like demons in the lowermost bowels of Hell.
Nothing can be done for your mother now. It’s too late for her. But it’s not too late for you to learn from her errors by repenting of any skanky “catting around” you did in your youth before you end up losing your mind and are turned into a hell-bound automaton like she was. But don’t despair. Truth be told, we’re all in a lot of trouble—with the kind of God we serve, we all better hope we don’t die between prayers!
As to how close we are to finding a cure for the disease, we’re nowhere close. But that may well be a blasphemous question on your part – just as our trying to find a cure for Alzheimer’s may be a work of the devil on our part – since it is a known fact that God very often punishes his people with plagues.
Pray for us and we’ll pray for you. The more we beg, the happier God is!
In His Grace,
Dr. E.J. Jacobson
(JH)
The Essential Nuttiness of Near-Death Experiences as Evidence for the Supernatural
There's a new argument some Christians are trumpeting about. I heard an old “Infidel Guy Show” featuring Dr. Gary Habermas recently, and he suggests that near death experiences or NDEs are somehow evidence that there is a supernatural world.
This of course is nutty. First of all, Christians believe that all death experiences are near death, since they believe everyone will be resurrected at some point, and that Lazarus could come back to life after 3 days, Jesus could come back to life after slightly more than 36 hours, Jairus' daughter could come back to life ... and so on.
That a Christian would believe that any death is permanent gives the lie to their stated belief system.
None of the NDEs that they use as evidence these days are nearly so clear cut however, we certainly don't have a Lazarus in the bunch. These stories relate anecdotes of people having knowledge of things they couldn't have known unless they were having an out-of-body experience. One common example is of a woman in Seattle named only “Maria” who claims to have seen a tennis shoe on a hospital roof. The interesting thing about this story is that there is only one witness, and that witness is a social worker, Kimberly Clark Sharp who also had an NDE and who feels that Maria's tale was so compelling she started a foundation to study NDEs called IANDS. Obviously she's the paragon of objectivity though.
However, even this is also nutty. It's time for Christians who believe NDEs are evidence for Christianity to come clean.
First they need to explain exactly what the theory of the soul is. They may say that the soul is an entirely non-physical spiritual entity that is separate from the body. If so, they are obliged to explain what happens to it when someone undergoes anesthesia, or is in a coma, or simply falls asleep? Why then does their soul not show them things while it was out and and about? If it doesn't go out during other losses of consciousness why is the soul coming out during near death? What specific triggers allow a soul to come out of the body and how can they be reproduced?
Second, they need to explain where the soul is going. Is it going to heaven? Where is that? What rate should a soul travel at to reach it? Why do souls always go up? The direction to a fixed point that is not on the earth should vary significantly depending on the time of day, location on the globe, and the season – in fact if heaven is a location, by definition something between 40% and 50% of souls going there should go through the earth and we should be getting reports of veins of gold underneath hospitals as well.
If heaven is indeed a location – can we find it?
Third, they need to explain what mode of interface the soul uses to re-inject its spiritual knowledge back into the brain after the NDE and explain how this is impossible for the soul to do during other losses of consciousness -- head trauma, sleep, anesthesia, etc.
Finally, if Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or any other dominant religion is true, than actual, verifiable near death experiences should result in all people having them affirming the truth of the one true religion, why is this not the case?
I eagerly await the responses of Dr. Gary Habermas, or his boosters. However, pseudoscientific drivel usually just brings out more speculative idiocy, so I'm not optimistic.
In the interests of fairness, however, here's my explanation: Near death experiences are the properties of brains. Like deja vu and other consciousness related neural phenomena, they are primary reactions of the areas of the brain that create consciousness to specific stimuli (in this case hypoxia). The areas involved are primarily the superior and inferior colliculi, the peri-aqueductal grey, and certain other areas of the mesodiencephalon.
If my explanation is true, then under rigorous conditions, people undergoing near death experience should not become aware of any facts that they could not otherwise learn and should not be able to immediately recall them on returning to consciousness.
A simple test would be to place rotating images of seventy common animals on screens above emergency room areas where patients are resuscitated. The screens would be turned toward the ceiling. These images would rotate on a one per minute basis, controlled by a central computer. No member of the ER staff should know the purpose of the screens, what images were on the screens, or that the study was being done in regard to NDEs. Patients should be interviewed by disinterested 3rd parties shortly (within 1 hour) after regaining consciousness after a resuscitation. According to some figures about 12% of patients who are resuscitated will have an NDE.
After resuscitation, patients would be asked simply if they recalled the experience. These recollections could be compared to logs for the resuscitation and an independent 4th party could compare them to the logs of images for given beds in that room. Statistical tests could then be done to determine if any accurate responses were due to more than random chance, the study shouldn't take longer than 10 years given the 12% figure above.
My prediction is that patients will properly identify the situation in the room only rarely (there is a screen above the bed), and only by random chance will they correctly identify the animal image(s) that was/were present at the time they were having their arrest.
In addition, my prediction is that more than 99% of patients with NDEs will “travel up” and “see” things that are above their beds in relation to the earth and that less than 1% will “go down” and report seeing the basement or lower floors of the hospital.
This of course is nutty. First of all, Christians believe that all death experiences are near death, since they believe everyone will be resurrected at some point, and that Lazarus could come back to life after 3 days, Jesus could come back to life after slightly more than 36 hours, Jairus' daughter could come back to life ... and so on.
That a Christian would believe that any death is permanent gives the lie to their stated belief system.
None of the NDEs that they use as evidence these days are nearly so clear cut however, we certainly don't have a Lazarus in the bunch. These stories relate anecdotes of people having knowledge of things they couldn't have known unless they were having an out-of-body experience. One common example is of a woman in Seattle named only “Maria” who claims to have seen a tennis shoe on a hospital roof. The interesting thing about this story is that there is only one witness, and that witness is a social worker, Kimberly Clark Sharp who also had an NDE and who feels that Maria's tale was so compelling she started a foundation to study NDEs called IANDS. Obviously she's the paragon of objectivity though.
However, even this is also nutty. It's time for Christians who believe NDEs are evidence for Christianity to come clean.
First they need to explain exactly what the theory of the soul is. They may say that the soul is an entirely non-physical spiritual entity that is separate from the body. If so, they are obliged to explain what happens to it when someone undergoes anesthesia, or is in a coma, or simply falls asleep? Why then does their soul not show them things while it was out and and about? If it doesn't go out during other losses of consciousness why is the soul coming out during near death? What specific triggers allow a soul to come out of the body and how can they be reproduced?
Second, they need to explain where the soul is going. Is it going to heaven? Where is that? What rate should a soul travel at to reach it? Why do souls always go up? The direction to a fixed point that is not on the earth should vary significantly depending on the time of day, location on the globe, and the season – in fact if heaven is a location, by definition something between 40% and 50% of souls going there should go through the earth and we should be getting reports of veins of gold underneath hospitals as well.
If heaven is indeed a location – can we find it?
Third, they need to explain what mode of interface the soul uses to re-inject its spiritual knowledge back into the brain after the NDE and explain how this is impossible for the soul to do during other losses of consciousness -- head trauma, sleep, anesthesia, etc.
Finally, if Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or any other dominant religion is true, than actual, verifiable near death experiences should result in all people having them affirming the truth of the one true religion, why is this not the case?
I eagerly await the responses of Dr. Gary Habermas, or his boosters. However, pseudoscientific drivel usually just brings out more speculative idiocy, so I'm not optimistic.
In the interests of fairness, however, here's my explanation: Near death experiences are the properties of brains. Like deja vu and other consciousness related neural phenomena, they are primary reactions of the areas of the brain that create consciousness to specific stimuli (in this case hypoxia). The areas involved are primarily the superior and inferior colliculi, the peri-aqueductal grey, and certain other areas of the mesodiencephalon.
If my explanation is true, then under rigorous conditions, people undergoing near death experience should not become aware of any facts that they could not otherwise learn and should not be able to immediately recall them on returning to consciousness.
A simple test would be to place rotating images of seventy common animals on screens above emergency room areas where patients are resuscitated. The screens would be turned toward the ceiling. These images would rotate on a one per minute basis, controlled by a central computer. No member of the ER staff should know the purpose of the screens, what images were on the screens, or that the study was being done in regard to NDEs. Patients should be interviewed by disinterested 3rd parties shortly (within 1 hour) after regaining consciousness after a resuscitation. According to some figures about 12% of patients who are resuscitated will have an NDE.
After resuscitation, patients would be asked simply if they recalled the experience. These recollections could be compared to logs for the resuscitation and an independent 4th party could compare them to the logs of images for given beds in that room. Statistical tests could then be done to determine if any accurate responses were due to more than random chance, the study shouldn't take longer than 10 years given the 12% figure above.
My prediction is that patients will properly identify the situation in the room only rarely (there is a screen above the bed), and only by random chance will they correctly identify the animal image(s) that was/were present at the time they were having their arrest.
In addition, my prediction is that more than 99% of patients with NDEs will “travel up” and “see” things that are above their beds in relation to the earth and that less than 1% will “go down” and report seeing the basement or lower floors of the hospital.
March 02, 2008
Atheist, YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
Here's a You Tube video showing us some celebrity atheists. Who says atheists don't contribute to society? Ahhhh, but they're all going to hell, eh? Balderdash!
Thanks to Dan Barker on My Space for the link. If the music is offensive to Christians just turn it way down. There isn't any talking in it.
Cheers. ;-)
Thanks to Dan Barker on My Space for the link. If the music is offensive to Christians just turn it way down. There isn't any talking in it.
Cheers. ;-)
Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel
I've been doing some study of the Bible and ran across the problem of child sacrifice. Check it out, as well as this link, and that one.
Where is the 800 pound gorilla?
The formative period of Christianity was a turbulent time, to say the least. For several decades, Jews and gentiles, some Christianized, some not, belonged to the same diaspora synagogues. Many contentious issues show up in the New Testament, especially regarding the rules for the inclusion of gentiles. But there is a glaring omission. A pivotal battle which should have been occured didn't take place. To ignore it is literally like not noticing an 800 pound gorilla standing in the corner of a room. The discussion of the battle that wasn't has huge implications for Christian claims.
The writings of the apostle Paul are the earliest stream of Christian thinking available to us today. He wrote from circa 50 CE to perhaps the early 60's. Only the epistle to the Hebrews competes with Paul for primacy in time. Paul never wrote a fully developed theology, nor did he offer much description of the history of his exploits, but in his letters addressing issues troubling particular congregations, we can look over his shoulder and get a feel for the situations he was addressing. His insistence that gentiles be admitted to full membership in the synagogues set off a host of issues since many of them brought some of their customs with them.
Among the problems which distressed Paul were sexual immorality, eating food offered to idols, losing hope, improper observance of the supper, observance of holy days, inter-congregational relations, charity, and the understanding of the means of salvation. But no issue dominated his conversation more than that of the inclusion of gentile believers into the congregation without becoming fully observant Jews. Paul fancied himself as the man tasked with converting the gentiles and bringing them into the true Israel of God. His letter to the churches of Galatia, generally considered to be his first, is targeted directly to this issue.
In the Epistle to the congregations of Galatia Paul takes issue with Judaizers, emmissaries from Jerusalem, who are insisting that his converts become fully observant Jews. The initiation rite of circumcision was used as the term standing for adherance to the whole Torah including following kosher rules for eating, ceremonial washing, wearing proper clothing, observing holy days, etc. While some of the gentile converts to Paul's preaching were willing to follow some of the laws of the Torah, some were not. And the biggest issue was that of circumcision itself. This rite of entrance into the covenant with the God of Abraham was obviously not something an adult male would wish to undergo, sans anesthesia. Yet the Judaizers contending with Paul were convincing some of his converts to undergo the procedure and to become subject to all the rules of the Torah. Those who were resistant were under pressure to submit. Paul was apoplectic.
Historical context must be appreciated at this point. It must be remembered that the crisis with the Greek king Antiochus IV was fresh in the mind of every Jew. In the 160's BCE, in his conquest of Judea, Antiochus disallowed circumcision under pain of death. He intended to force his subjects to receive the blessings of his superior Greek culture, and destroying the temple-state culture of the Jews was paramount in his mind. Parents who circumcised their sons on the 8th day were routinely killed. Many followed the prohibition out of fear. Others continued to circumcize and rose in rebellion eventually throwing off the rule of Antiochus and brutally re-establishing proper Torah observance and the necessity to circumcize (commemorated in the festival of Channukah). Many of those who refused circumcision were circumcized forcibly. Others were exiled, many to the region of Galilee. To the Jews, these events were like yesterday. The issues were fresh. The necessity to be fully observant was no longer a question. The requirements were clear and final. The religious police were actively enforcing the rules.
To Paul, this was a crisis of ultimate importance. To his rivals, the argument was foundational. One must be a full Jewish convert in order to find inclusion within the covenant community. Paul argued strenuously against that necessity, stating that faith alone was sufficient; that the promise to Abraham to be a blessing to all nations (gentiles) through his seed was to be enjoyed without submission to the Torah.
Paul indicates that he had gone to Jerusalem to meet with the pillars, specifically Cephas and James, and received their blessing on the inclusion of gentiles based only on their faith and willingness to abstain from various immoralities. Circumcision and adherance to the entire Torah would not be required. From Paul's point of view, his arguments carried the day.
But as important as the issue of Torah observance was, it pales beside the issue which defined Judaism. That issue is the nature and identity of God. This issue is fundamental to Judaism and preceeds observance to the laws in that the laws proceed from God, and he is recognized and defined in the most important prayer of Judaism. This prayer, and the identity of the 800 pound gorilla standing unnoticed in the corner, is known as the SHEMA.
The Shema is the prayer which begins and ends the day of every observant Jew. It is recited at the time of death. It is the recognition that there is one God, transcendent, above all, and requiring of recognition and obedience as he calls his people into covenant with himself. Here is thereading of the Shema:
שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד
Sh'ma Yis'ra'eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.
Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One. Deut 6:4
Note that the name of God YHWH is rendered "Adonai" (the Lord) so as to avoid accidentally pronouncing the holy name. To observant Jews, the person of God is frequently called "Ha Shem" which in Hebrew means "The Name." The name of God is not to be pronounced, so holy is it. The Shema defines Jews as monotheists. This cannot in any way be minimized. They believe in the one God, the Most High, the Almighty, The Lord, and there is none like him. No image can represent him. Nothing on earth can be worshipped. There is nothing of correspondence between YHWH and his creation.
Now, referring back to the crisis of Greek rule under Antiochus IV, the event which triggered the bloody rebellion of the Maccabean Jews was when Antiochus put his own image in the most holy place in the temple. Antiochus promoted the cult of the living ruler. He proclaimed himself to be the incarnation of Zeus on earth, the supreme God in human flesh. He demanded that the Jews offer worship and sacrifice to his image. The Jews would have none of it. That a man would be proclaimed to be God was the ultimate abomination. The Jews under Judas Maccabee rose up and killed both the Jewish collaborators and the foreign soldiers, reinstituting the worship of the one true God and ejecting the image of the man who claimed to be the incarnation of God.
Why is this an issue, an 800 pound gorilla which no one wants to notice? Because Paul and presumably others were proclaiming that Jesus was God. Next to this claim, the issue of whether or not to circumcize would pale into insignificance. If there was one issue which should have been the ultimate point of contention in the early Christian proclamation, this was it. Where were the Jews ready to take up stones against Paul for blasphemy claiming that a man was God? Where was Paul's argumentation defending the proposition that God had come to earth and lived as a man? Where is the discussion with the Pillars in Jerusalem over this issue? Was the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols really more fundamental than the claim that God had been recently incarnated? A war had recently been fought over that very claim. To claim that anyone or anything in the material realm could have ontological correspondence with the Most High was anathema.
No issue could be expected to come to the fore more than the issue of identifying Jesus as God. Yet, it didn't happen. What are we to make of this conundrum? There are several possibilities:
POSSIBILITY 1. Paul never claimed divinity for Jesus, therefore no battle over monotheism would be expected:
This is not a credible suggestion based upon clear statements from Paul's authentic epistles. Some examples:
"Who (the Son) is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him: he is before all things and by him all things consist." Col 1:15-18. This sounds rather God-like. The Son is being presented as the Creator of Genesis.
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Phil 2:5,6. Literally "not something to be held onto." This is in the hymn showing the Son descending and ascending. Again, the claim of divinity for Jesus is clear.
It is apparent that Paul did proclaim the divinity of Jesus. Possibility number 1 is thus null and void.
POSSIBILITY 2. There was a battle over the claim that Jesus was God, however, the record has been lost:
That something so fundamental could have gone unmentioned in the book of Galatians is difficult to believe. Could there have been a battle not mentioned elsewhere in Paul? There are at least two epistles of Paul which are lost to history. His epistle to the Colossians mentions an epistle to the church of Laodicea. We have no information as to its contents. The second epistle to the Corinthians mentions "a letter of tears" which does not seem to be a match with first Corinthians.
Since these have been lost, and since others not mentioned could have been lost, it is possible that a great discussion over the issue of Jesus as God could have ensued, but it cannot be known. If God had been providencially protecting his word, not allowing these letters to be lost might have been a good place to start (this has implications for the doctrine of innerancy). This possibility, however, is difficult to maintain, for it can be safely assumed that such a discussion would have touched all the epistles which were preserved. It is simply too fundamental an issue to have gone unmentioned in the foundational period of Christianity. To claim that a man was God incarnated would have been the ultimate hot button issue and an offense to Judaism. Silence on the question indicates that the battle did not take place.
Therefore we must conclude that possibility 2, while not absolutely falsifiable, is overwhelmingly unlikely.
POSSIBILITY 3. Paul did not assume that Christ Jesus had lived on earth as a Jew just a few years prior to his own conversion. If he did not consider Jesus to have been a man, no battle over monotheism would be expected:
This is not as far-fetched as it may seem at first gasp. Mark's Gospel, the first documented mention of Jesus living in the recent past, would not be written for many years after Paul's epistles. It is nothing more than an inferrance to assume that Paul was envisioning the Jesus of the gospels. He himself is silent on the details of the "Jesus of history."
The questions must be asked, Is it legitimate to read into Paul the beliefs of others from a later time? Since later writers referred to Jesus "of Nazareth" is it a necessary implication that Paul had that personage in mind? Orthodoxy would answer yes to both questions. Those accepting a priori that all writings which were collected into the New Testament were inspired, non-contradictory, and are different aspects of a single truth will feel free to harmonize Paul with the gospels, but if we examine Paul in isolation, his Jesus inhabits a very different universe than did Jesus of Nazareth. Just because Christians of later years would choose to compile a collection of disparate documents together, does not necessarily indicate that they belong together nor that their authors shared a common outlook.
Paul had much to say about Jesus. His Jesus, though, does not share much commonality with the Jesus of the gospels. Imagine for a moment that Mark's gospel had never been written, or like some of Paul's letters, lost. What would we know of Jesus from reading Paul and the other epistle writers? The obvious answer is nothing aside from the activities of a descending and ascending heavenly savior who has created a new Israel through faith.
Where, for instance, does one find in Paul:
A. Any mention of the birth of Jesus
B. The virgin Mary
C. Joseph
D. The family of Jesus
E. The birthplace of Jesus
F. His hometown of Nazareth (a town which may not have existed at the time)
G. His baptism by John in the Jordan river
H. His temptation in the wilderness
I. His healing miracles
J. His exorcisms
K. His preaching ministry in Galilee
L. His cleanshing of the temple
M. His disputes with the Pharisees in the synagogues
N. His disciples
O. His betrayal by Judas
P. His struggle in Gethsemane
Q. His arrest
R. His trial
S. His questioning by Herod
T. His crucifixion in Jerusalem
U. The two thieves
V. His burial in Joseph's tomb
W. The empty tomb
X. The resurrection appearances to the women
Y. The great commission
Z. The ascension before a crowd of witnesses
Many more details of the life of the Jesus of the Gospels are missing from Paul of course, but we've run out of alphabet. That which we are touching on here is The Pauline Problem. The problem is that Paul never locates the activities of Jesus in a particular historical period nor in a particular geographical location. He seems to be completely unaware of the gospel details of Jesus of Nazareth. He specifically says that he received his information about Jesus through direct revelation or interpretation of the Jewish scriptures, not by oral tradition or knowledge via human agency. His Jesus operates in the cosmos.
Is it possible that the reason the issue of Jewish monotheism didn't come to the fore is because Paul wasn't making pronouncements which would be in conflict with it? If that is the case, what would the explanation be?
Judaism in that period was very eclectic, and freely made use of hellenistic philosophy. For instance, God was seen as being so transcendent that some intermediary form was needed to communicate with man. It was not seen as a contradiction of belief in the one God to envision "emanations" or "aspects" of God acting in lower regions of the heavens, even treating them as somewhat separate persons.
Some Jewish writers and poets of the period freely spoke of Wisdom, or Sophia, as an aspect of God, even as the feminized consort of God, or the Spirit of God. She was pictured as being sent forth by God to communicate to man but was rejected and returned to the highest heaven. In some instances she was pictured as being a virgin mother to an anointed (Christ) Son of God who was a savior to those who believe. Philo, a contemporary of Paul and platonic philosopher/theologian and historian, spoke of the logos (word) of God who was God's agent in the creation of the world and cosmos. God Himself was seen as being too transcendent to deal directly with the lower material world; he used an intermediary to create, but still an aspect of Himself. Philo's concepts were the source for the preamble to John's gospel, "in the beginning was the 'logos' (the word) and the logos was with God and the logos was God. Through him were all things made that were made."
The Jewish religious literature of the period is rich with speculation and contemplation of the aspects of God descending through the heavens for the benefit of man. Diaspora Judaism was living in a Greek universe, and was immersed in Platonic thought. The concepts from that literature were the basis for many of the foundational ideas which we find in the NT and other early Christian literature. Many of the Jewish texts eloquently describing the saving aspects of the personified emanations of God sound utterly Christian until one notices that they are not referring to a man named Jesus. Some of the literature makes much of the coming of God's holy spirit and savior and uses the term "the anointed" which in Greek is simply "Christos." Paul's heavenly savior has an apropros name in "Jesus" which literally means Yahweh Saves. To refer to him in Paul's manner as "Christ Jesus" would not be foreign to the Jewish literature of the period, meaning the Anointed One through whom Yahweh Saves. There is no reason in Paul's context that "Christ Jesus" cannot be a title as much as a name. Paul's "Son of God" character did not even receive the name "Jesus" (savior) until he had ascended back to God's side. Phil 2:5-11 (nothing remotely resembling the naming of a baby in Bethlehem)
It is difficult for us moderns to get into the ancient mindset with a seven layered heaven with God in the 7th and highest layer and intermediary levels descending until the first heaven just above us. But Paul believed in it. He even claimed to have known someone who had been to the third level of heaven 2 Cor 12:2, perhaps he was speaking of himself in the third person. The concept of descending and ascending aspects of God was a commonplace to the first century Jewish mind. Aspects of God such as the logos, the spirit, Wisdom, or the son, could easily move through the different levels. The lower the descent, the more they would take on material characteristics and become less spiritual so as to be more understandable to man.
If Paul were referring to Christ Jesus as a descending and ascending Son-of-God savior figure rather than to a man, the problem ceases to exist. We wouldn't expect to find contention over monotheism if Paul were not envisioning a recently living man as God incarnate. Shema, the 800 pound gorilla, would no longer be in the room. Paul would simply be extrapolating the implications of Jewish thought already in vogue in his milieu. He would also be in harmony with the Greek-Egyptian hero/dying and rising sons of God common in the mystery religions of the era; Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, Adonis, Bacchus, et al.
To summarize, the absence of a battle over monotheism vis a vis claims to the divinity of Jesus must be explained. It is too fundamental to first century Jewish though to just gloss over. The need to answer the "WHY?" is overwhelming. The explanation must fall into one of three categories: Early Christians didn't think of Jesus as being divine; The story of the intense battle has been lost; Paul wasn't identifying Jesus as a man who had been his contemporary in Palestine. Only the third theory offers a coherant resolution to the question.
Bart Willruth
March 2, 2008
The writings of the apostle Paul are the earliest stream of Christian thinking available to us today. He wrote from circa 50 CE to perhaps the early 60's. Only the epistle to the Hebrews competes with Paul for primacy in time. Paul never wrote a fully developed theology, nor did he offer much description of the history of his exploits, but in his letters addressing issues troubling particular congregations, we can look over his shoulder and get a feel for the situations he was addressing. His insistence that gentiles be admitted to full membership in the synagogues set off a host of issues since many of them brought some of their customs with them.
Among the problems which distressed Paul were sexual immorality, eating food offered to idols, losing hope, improper observance of the supper, observance of holy days, inter-congregational relations, charity, and the understanding of the means of salvation. But no issue dominated his conversation more than that of the inclusion of gentile believers into the congregation without becoming fully observant Jews. Paul fancied himself as the man tasked with converting the gentiles and bringing them into the true Israel of God. His letter to the churches of Galatia, generally considered to be his first, is targeted directly to this issue.
In the Epistle to the congregations of Galatia Paul takes issue with Judaizers, emmissaries from Jerusalem, who are insisting that his converts become fully observant Jews. The initiation rite of circumcision was used as the term standing for adherance to the whole Torah including following kosher rules for eating, ceremonial washing, wearing proper clothing, observing holy days, etc. While some of the gentile converts to Paul's preaching were willing to follow some of the laws of the Torah, some were not. And the biggest issue was that of circumcision itself. This rite of entrance into the covenant with the God of Abraham was obviously not something an adult male would wish to undergo, sans anesthesia. Yet the Judaizers contending with Paul were convincing some of his converts to undergo the procedure and to become subject to all the rules of the Torah. Those who were resistant were under pressure to submit. Paul was apoplectic.
Historical context must be appreciated at this point. It must be remembered that the crisis with the Greek king Antiochus IV was fresh in the mind of every Jew. In the 160's BCE, in his conquest of Judea, Antiochus disallowed circumcision under pain of death. He intended to force his subjects to receive the blessings of his superior Greek culture, and destroying the temple-state culture of the Jews was paramount in his mind. Parents who circumcised their sons on the 8th day were routinely killed. Many followed the prohibition out of fear. Others continued to circumcize and rose in rebellion eventually throwing off the rule of Antiochus and brutally re-establishing proper Torah observance and the necessity to circumcize (commemorated in the festival of Channukah). Many of those who refused circumcision were circumcized forcibly. Others were exiled, many to the region of Galilee. To the Jews, these events were like yesterday. The issues were fresh. The necessity to be fully observant was no longer a question. The requirements were clear and final. The religious police were actively enforcing the rules.
To Paul, this was a crisis of ultimate importance. To his rivals, the argument was foundational. One must be a full Jewish convert in order to find inclusion within the covenant community. Paul argued strenuously against that necessity, stating that faith alone was sufficient; that the promise to Abraham to be a blessing to all nations (gentiles) through his seed was to be enjoyed without submission to the Torah.
Paul indicates that he had gone to Jerusalem to meet with the pillars, specifically Cephas and James, and received their blessing on the inclusion of gentiles based only on their faith and willingness to abstain from various immoralities. Circumcision and adherance to the entire Torah would not be required. From Paul's point of view, his arguments carried the day.
But as important as the issue of Torah observance was, it pales beside the issue which defined Judaism. That issue is the nature and identity of God. This issue is fundamental to Judaism and preceeds observance to the laws in that the laws proceed from God, and he is recognized and defined in the most important prayer of Judaism. This prayer, and the identity of the 800 pound gorilla standing unnoticed in the corner, is known as the SHEMA.
The Shema is the prayer which begins and ends the day of every observant Jew. It is recited at the time of death. It is the recognition that there is one God, transcendent, above all, and requiring of recognition and obedience as he calls his people into covenant with himself. Here is thereading of the Shema:
שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד
Sh'ma Yis'ra'eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.
Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One. Deut 6:4
Note that the name of God YHWH is rendered "Adonai" (the Lord) so as to avoid accidentally pronouncing the holy name. To observant Jews, the person of God is frequently called "Ha Shem" which in Hebrew means "The Name." The name of God is not to be pronounced, so holy is it. The Shema defines Jews as monotheists. This cannot in any way be minimized. They believe in the one God, the Most High, the Almighty, The Lord, and there is none like him. No image can represent him. Nothing on earth can be worshipped. There is nothing of correspondence between YHWH and his creation.
Now, referring back to the crisis of Greek rule under Antiochus IV, the event which triggered the bloody rebellion of the Maccabean Jews was when Antiochus put his own image in the most holy place in the temple. Antiochus promoted the cult of the living ruler. He proclaimed himself to be the incarnation of Zeus on earth, the supreme God in human flesh. He demanded that the Jews offer worship and sacrifice to his image. The Jews would have none of it. That a man would be proclaimed to be God was the ultimate abomination. The Jews under Judas Maccabee rose up and killed both the Jewish collaborators and the foreign soldiers, reinstituting the worship of the one true God and ejecting the image of the man who claimed to be the incarnation of God.
Why is this an issue, an 800 pound gorilla which no one wants to notice? Because Paul and presumably others were proclaiming that Jesus was God. Next to this claim, the issue of whether or not to circumcize would pale into insignificance. If there was one issue which should have been the ultimate point of contention in the early Christian proclamation, this was it. Where were the Jews ready to take up stones against Paul for blasphemy claiming that a man was God? Where was Paul's argumentation defending the proposition that God had come to earth and lived as a man? Where is the discussion with the Pillars in Jerusalem over this issue? Was the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols really more fundamental than the claim that God had been recently incarnated? A war had recently been fought over that very claim. To claim that anyone or anything in the material realm could have ontological correspondence with the Most High was anathema.
No issue could be expected to come to the fore more than the issue of identifying Jesus as God. Yet, it didn't happen. What are we to make of this conundrum? There are several possibilities:
POSSIBILITY 1. Paul never claimed divinity for Jesus, therefore no battle over monotheism would be expected:
This is not a credible suggestion based upon clear statements from Paul's authentic epistles. Some examples:
"Who (the Son) is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him: he is before all things and by him all things consist." Col 1:15-18. This sounds rather God-like. The Son is being presented as the Creator of Genesis.
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Phil 2:5,6. Literally "not something to be held onto." This is in the hymn showing the Son descending and ascending. Again, the claim of divinity for Jesus is clear.
It is apparent that Paul did proclaim the divinity of Jesus. Possibility number 1 is thus null and void.
POSSIBILITY 2. There was a battle over the claim that Jesus was God, however, the record has been lost:
That something so fundamental could have gone unmentioned in the book of Galatians is difficult to believe. Could there have been a battle not mentioned elsewhere in Paul? There are at least two epistles of Paul which are lost to history. His epistle to the Colossians mentions an epistle to the church of Laodicea. We have no information as to its contents. The second epistle to the Corinthians mentions "a letter of tears" which does not seem to be a match with first Corinthians.
Since these have been lost, and since others not mentioned could have been lost, it is possible that a great discussion over the issue of Jesus as God could have ensued, but it cannot be known. If God had been providencially protecting his word, not allowing these letters to be lost might have been a good place to start (this has implications for the doctrine of innerancy). This possibility, however, is difficult to maintain, for it can be safely assumed that such a discussion would have touched all the epistles which were preserved. It is simply too fundamental an issue to have gone unmentioned in the foundational period of Christianity. To claim that a man was God incarnated would have been the ultimate hot button issue and an offense to Judaism. Silence on the question indicates that the battle did not take place.
Therefore we must conclude that possibility 2, while not absolutely falsifiable, is overwhelmingly unlikely.
POSSIBILITY 3. Paul did not assume that Christ Jesus had lived on earth as a Jew just a few years prior to his own conversion. If he did not consider Jesus to have been a man, no battle over monotheism would be expected:
This is not as far-fetched as it may seem at first gasp. Mark's Gospel, the first documented mention of Jesus living in the recent past, would not be written for many years after Paul's epistles. It is nothing more than an inferrance to assume that Paul was envisioning the Jesus of the gospels. He himself is silent on the details of the "Jesus of history."
The questions must be asked, Is it legitimate to read into Paul the beliefs of others from a later time? Since later writers referred to Jesus "of Nazareth" is it a necessary implication that Paul had that personage in mind? Orthodoxy would answer yes to both questions. Those accepting a priori that all writings which were collected into the New Testament were inspired, non-contradictory, and are different aspects of a single truth will feel free to harmonize Paul with the gospels, but if we examine Paul in isolation, his Jesus inhabits a very different universe than did Jesus of Nazareth. Just because Christians of later years would choose to compile a collection of disparate documents together, does not necessarily indicate that they belong together nor that their authors shared a common outlook.
Paul had much to say about Jesus. His Jesus, though, does not share much commonality with the Jesus of the gospels. Imagine for a moment that Mark's gospel had never been written, or like some of Paul's letters, lost. What would we know of Jesus from reading Paul and the other epistle writers? The obvious answer is nothing aside from the activities of a descending and ascending heavenly savior who has created a new Israel through faith.
Where, for instance, does one find in Paul:
A. Any mention of the birth of Jesus
B. The virgin Mary
C. Joseph
D. The family of Jesus
E. The birthplace of Jesus
F. His hometown of Nazareth (a town which may not have existed at the time)
G. His baptism by John in the Jordan river
H. His temptation in the wilderness
I. His healing miracles
J. His exorcisms
K. His preaching ministry in Galilee
L. His cleanshing of the temple
M. His disputes with the Pharisees in the synagogues
N. His disciples
O. His betrayal by Judas
P. His struggle in Gethsemane
Q. His arrest
R. His trial
S. His questioning by Herod
T. His crucifixion in Jerusalem
U. The two thieves
V. His burial in Joseph's tomb
W. The empty tomb
X. The resurrection appearances to the women
Y. The great commission
Z. The ascension before a crowd of witnesses
Many more details of the life of the Jesus of the Gospels are missing from Paul of course, but we've run out of alphabet. That which we are touching on here is The Pauline Problem. The problem is that Paul never locates the activities of Jesus in a particular historical period nor in a particular geographical location. He seems to be completely unaware of the gospel details of Jesus of Nazareth. He specifically says that he received his information about Jesus through direct revelation or interpretation of the Jewish scriptures, not by oral tradition or knowledge via human agency. His Jesus operates in the cosmos.
Is it possible that the reason the issue of Jewish monotheism didn't come to the fore is because Paul wasn't making pronouncements which would be in conflict with it? If that is the case, what would the explanation be?
Judaism in that period was very eclectic, and freely made use of hellenistic philosophy. For instance, God was seen as being so transcendent that some intermediary form was needed to communicate with man. It was not seen as a contradiction of belief in the one God to envision "emanations" or "aspects" of God acting in lower regions of the heavens, even treating them as somewhat separate persons.
Some Jewish writers and poets of the period freely spoke of Wisdom, or Sophia, as an aspect of God, even as the feminized consort of God, or the Spirit of God. She was pictured as being sent forth by God to communicate to man but was rejected and returned to the highest heaven. In some instances she was pictured as being a virgin mother to an anointed (Christ) Son of God who was a savior to those who believe. Philo, a contemporary of Paul and platonic philosopher/theologian and historian, spoke of the logos (word) of God who was God's agent in the creation of the world and cosmos. God Himself was seen as being too transcendent to deal directly with the lower material world; he used an intermediary to create, but still an aspect of Himself. Philo's concepts were the source for the preamble to John's gospel, "in the beginning was the 'logos' (the word) and the logos was with God and the logos was God. Through him were all things made that were made."
The Jewish religious literature of the period is rich with speculation and contemplation of the aspects of God descending through the heavens for the benefit of man. Diaspora Judaism was living in a Greek universe, and was immersed in Platonic thought. The concepts from that literature were the basis for many of the foundational ideas which we find in the NT and other early Christian literature. Many of the Jewish texts eloquently describing the saving aspects of the personified emanations of God sound utterly Christian until one notices that they are not referring to a man named Jesus. Some of the literature makes much of the coming of God's holy spirit and savior and uses the term "the anointed" which in Greek is simply "Christos." Paul's heavenly savior has an apropros name in "Jesus" which literally means Yahweh Saves. To refer to him in Paul's manner as "Christ Jesus" would not be foreign to the Jewish literature of the period, meaning the Anointed One through whom Yahweh Saves. There is no reason in Paul's context that "Christ Jesus" cannot be a title as much as a name. Paul's "Son of God" character did not even receive the name "Jesus" (savior) until he had ascended back to God's side. Phil 2:5-11 (nothing remotely resembling the naming of a baby in Bethlehem)
It is difficult for us moderns to get into the ancient mindset with a seven layered heaven with God in the 7th and highest layer and intermediary levels descending until the first heaven just above us. But Paul believed in it. He even claimed to have known someone who had been to the third level of heaven 2 Cor 12:2, perhaps he was speaking of himself in the third person. The concept of descending and ascending aspects of God was a commonplace to the first century Jewish mind. Aspects of God such as the logos, the spirit, Wisdom, or the son, could easily move through the different levels. The lower the descent, the more they would take on material characteristics and become less spiritual so as to be more understandable to man.
If Paul were referring to Christ Jesus as a descending and ascending Son-of-God savior figure rather than to a man, the problem ceases to exist. We wouldn't expect to find contention over monotheism if Paul were not envisioning a recently living man as God incarnate. Shema, the 800 pound gorilla, would no longer be in the room. Paul would simply be extrapolating the implications of Jewish thought already in vogue in his milieu. He would also be in harmony with the Greek-Egyptian hero/dying and rising sons of God common in the mystery religions of the era; Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, Adonis, Bacchus, et al.
To summarize, the absence of a battle over monotheism vis a vis claims to the divinity of Jesus must be explained. It is too fundamental to first century Jewish though to just gloss over. The need to answer the "WHY?" is overwhelming. The explanation must fall into one of three categories: Early Christians didn't think of Jesus as being divine; The story of the intense battle has been lost; Paul wasn't identifying Jesus as a man who had been his contemporary in Palestine. Only the third theory offers a coherant resolution to the question.
Bart Willruth
March 2, 2008
February 29, 2008
The Argument from Personal Experience
The argument from personal experience is used by most apologists from Ray Comfort to William Lane Craig. Craig says "Of course, ever since my conversion, I believed in the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of my personal experience, and I still think this experiential approach to the resurrection is a perfectly valid way to knowing that Christ has risen. It’s the way that most Christians today know that Jesus is risen and alive."
The problem for such apologeticists is show how the believer can critically determine when the personal experience she has with God is accurately reflecting the wishes of God, and not those of a hallucination brought on by drugs, delusion, psychosis or social alienation.
Is there any reliable way for believers to warn off people like Andrea Yates, Dena Schlosser or Seung Hi Cho? If there is, why don't apologists include this sort of caveat when talking about the argument from personal experience?
It seems to me that believers and nonbelievers alike have an immense interest in the cessation of religiously motivated killings. I have heard of many ecumenical councils that brought together disparate leaders of many faiths. The most recent one I recall was in Jerusalem, where leaders of Islam, Christianity and Judaism got together to denounce homosexuality. Yet as far as I know, believers have never even discussed the development of a reliable universal method to prevent deluded believers from killing someone.
The problem for such apologeticists is show how the believer can critically determine when the personal experience she has with God is accurately reflecting the wishes of God, and not those of a hallucination brought on by drugs, delusion, psychosis or social alienation.
Is there any reliable way for believers to warn off people like Andrea Yates, Dena Schlosser or Seung Hi Cho? If there is, why don't apologists include this sort of caveat when talking about the argument from personal experience?
It seems to me that believers and nonbelievers alike have an immense interest in the cessation of religiously motivated killings. I have heard of many ecumenical councils that brought together disparate leaders of many faiths. The most recent one I recall was in Jerusalem, where leaders of Islam, Christianity and Judaism got together to denounce homosexuality. Yet as far as I know, believers have never even discussed the development of a reliable universal method to prevent deluded believers from killing someone.
February 28, 2008
Another Person Walks Away From Christianity!
Not long ago I received the following email from Ed Owens, who lives in Missouri and attends a Church of Christ there with his wife, who still believes. Here’s what he said:
He's reading this. Any encouragement or helpful advice would be appreciated.
In another email he added:I'm a 50 year old man from Missouri who preached for almost 30 years for the Church of Christ. Several months ago I read Joe Holman’s article at minister turns atheist and began my study of why he would do such a thing. I am now convinced by my own studies of the absurdity of the book called the Bible. My family on both sides are all members of the church and are now giving me pure hell about it. I'm seeing a psychologist at the request of all the family. They seem to think she will reconvert me, I guess. That's their knee-jerk response; I must be coo coo or something like that.
I was raised in a Church of Christ family and was baptized at the age of 19 by my sibling brother who is an Evangelist for the Church of Christ. We are the one cup one loaf no Sunday School group. My wife also has the same roots in the Church and still does. My brother and I married sisters. He got the younger and I got the older. He is eight years older than me. My wife is seven years and a few months older than I am. She was married before to the same guy twice while away from the church. When she returned and confessed her unfaithfulness to the church and asked God's forgiveness she was reinstated as a member in good standing.I told him that until he put his foot down they wouldn’t leave him alone, so he composed the following letter and read it after last Wednesday's services:
I began preaching in 1978 at the tender age of 20 and gave it all fervor and conviction that I could muster. My Dad was a preacher for the CofC and an Elder for many years so you could say I was following in his steps as was two of my siblings besides me.
I came across Joe Holman's article on the internet entitled “minister turns atheist” and I couldn't help but wonder what would posses someone who was once a minister to turn to atheism. To make a long story short I studied his arguments and many other atheist arguments and found the Scriptures severely lacking in credibility and accuracy. I've been in touch with Joe and have corresponded quite often in the past few months.
I left the church and had it announced last Wednesday evening of my intentions. It came as quite a shock to some but not to all. My poor wife came unhinged when she began to discover my intentions. She has settled down somewhat in the past week. I told her I would attend with her on Sundays if she wanted and of course she does. How long that will last I have no idea. It is very difficult to set through a service and listen to a message that is full of error and conjecture and not be tempted to jump up and declare, "It is a bunch of hooey!" You know what hooey is, don't you? I thought so. DUNG! MANURE! KA-KA!
When the de-conversion started I was devastated!!! I felt like I had been lied to all my life. I was raised to believe the scriptures were without error and had no contradictions whatsoever. When I took the blinders off and began to see the multitude of errors and contradictions I became angry and tried to point them out to my Evangelist brother, who by the way had been my mentor all my life, and how he might see the truth of all this. You can imagine the result. He began to tell me how deluded I was and not to read that junk, as he called it, it would just confuse me and warp my mind. I tried time after time to illustrate the errors to him but he would not hear of it. He and I no longer speak to each other. He's refused to answer my email because he can't control the situation by his overpowering personality and make me shut up!
I've tried subtly to show others the errors and to no avail. I've even been told to quit trying to proselyte members. Any advice you can give me I sure would appreciate it!!! My wife belittles me at every turn claiming that I'm headed for Hell if I don't change and repent. My brother likewise gives me fits. He is an Evangelist for the church and at one time my dearest and closest friend, past tense!
It has come to my attention that some folks believe I have lost my mind. I believe the term was mentally ill. Let me assure you each and everyone that is not the case.Then the shit hit the fan. Here’s what he wrote me last night afterwards:
I stand before you this evening to set the record straight. I AM NOT MENTALLY ILL.
I am quite sane, I assure you. If this does not persuade you then you may call my analyst, who I have been seeing at the request of family and friends, and will verify what I have just said. I have given written legal permission to divulge my mental state.
People sincerely disagree on a host of issues, from who should be the next President, to which diet is best for losing weight. No one ever thinks to say that people who disagree about such issues is mentally ill. So why should that be the case here? Many of us have decided to walk away from the Christian faith, including former Church of Christ preachers Farrell Till, Joe Holman and John W. Loftus. I no longer believe for the same reasons you don't accept Islam or Mormonism, and no one considers those who don't believe them to be mentally ill for doing so.
Now, that having been said, I wish to make some things crystal clear so that not a single person misunderstands why I am up here.
1. I am no longer a member of the church.
2. I do NOT need reconverting PLEASE RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO TRY!
3. I will not debate, verbally converse, or argue with ANYONE on the issues surrounding my decision to leave the church.
4. If you feel so disposed to chastise me, I reserve the right to respond in kind. When you do, realize that you are only reinforcing my decision by not showing that you care for me as a person.
5. I still love each and every one of you irregardless of your feelings toward me. I really do.
6. I may attend services from time to time out of respect, but I will be attending less and less, since it would be no different for you if you were asked to attend a Jewish service, which you don't believe. I admire your convictions even if I do not share in them.
7. I have been accused of trying to de-convert members with emails. I submit material for consideration by email and when I am told to stop, I DO!
In conclusion, I understand your concern for my spiritual well being. You have voiced it and I have heard. Now, please stop. I am assuming full responsibility for my own actions from this point forward.
You will not appreciate my decision I am sure, but you are going to have to learn to accept it because I am confident upon the ground I stand.
I read the letter to the congregation after services had concluded and it was instant fireworks! My brother had to put in his two cents worth.Why in the hell do Christians have to make it so hard on us when we no longer believe? I’m proud of Ed. He did what was necessary and right. He's one of our unsung heroes. And I’m also proud of his wife for loving Ed enough to leave that church over it.
He claimed the analyst was my own decision, which was a lie, and then shouted that I was dis-fellowshipped. I thought that was really strange since I had just announced my own leaving of the faith. I asked if I was banned from the church assemblies and he said no, there was no need for me to attend ‘cause I would just be a hypocrite by doing so. I should have called him on the carpet right in front of everyone about not following scriptural process of dis-fellowship, but I didn't, I just walked out.
I know I did the right thing but now my wife has no intention of attending that congregation any longer. She says she will attend where my daughter goes.
Thanks again for your support.
He's reading this. Any encouragement or helpful advice would be appreciated.
Does the Recent Pew Forum Data Undermine My Outsider Test for Faith?
Over at Atheism Sucks Mariano is crowing about the atheist "failed" argument that people adopt the religion of their parents, based on the recent Pew Forum Poll, which says: “28% of American adults have left the faith of their childhood for another one. And that does not even include those who switched from one Protestant denomination to another; if it did, the number would jump to 44%.” If correct, this would tend to undermine the basis for the Outsider Test for Faith that I’ve developed, where I ask people to test their faith as if they were an outsider to it, since that’s how they test these other faiths, as outsiders.
However, this poll data does not, I repeat, does not undermine the sociological data that what faith a person adopts is because of "when and where they were born." Our parents have an extremely significant role to play in what faith we originally adopt. This is indisputable regardless of this new poll data. People still adopt the religion of their parents. The fact that they leave it later on in life says nothing against this sociological data, which is proven over and over again in separate geographical areas around the globe.
What's the difference in America then? The difference is that we are now more than ever embracing syncretism, pluralism and pragmatism. These beliefs are the new "religion" in American culture, and so it should not surprise us in the least if American people abandon the religion of their parents. More and more people are treating religion like they do with diet and sex. Variety is the spice of life when it comes to these things. So also is religion. Our American culture doesn't think there is much of a difference between many of the religions. So it stands to reason people will switch church affiliations for a better, warmer pew, with a better building, and where their friends from work attend, that has a better sermon or better music. After all, the moral message still seems to be the same, and that’s what more and more Americans think the value of religion provides anyway.
So until someone can dispute that children adopt the religion of their parents, or until someone can dispute that the dominant beliefs among Americans are syncretism, pluralism and pragmatism, this poll data has no effect on my argument.
However, this poll data does not, I repeat, does not undermine the sociological data that what faith a person adopts is because of "when and where they were born." Our parents have an extremely significant role to play in what faith we originally adopt. This is indisputable regardless of this new poll data. People still adopt the religion of their parents. The fact that they leave it later on in life says nothing against this sociological data, which is proven over and over again in separate geographical areas around the globe.
What's the difference in America then? The difference is that we are now more than ever embracing syncretism, pluralism and pragmatism. These beliefs are the new "religion" in American culture, and so it should not surprise us in the least if American people abandon the religion of their parents. More and more people are treating religion like they do with diet and sex. Variety is the spice of life when it comes to these things. So also is religion. Our American culture doesn't think there is much of a difference between many of the religions. So it stands to reason people will switch church affiliations for a better, warmer pew, with a better building, and where their friends from work attend, that has a better sermon or better music. After all, the moral message still seems to be the same, and that’s what more and more Americans think the value of religion provides anyway.
So until someone can dispute that children adopt the religion of their parents, or until someone can dispute that the dominant beliefs among Americans are syncretism, pluralism and pragmatism, this poll data has no effect on my argument.
February 27, 2008
Noah, John, Luke, Paul, and Mary
When God speaks to you, He asks you to listen to Him, believe what He says, and follow His instructions. It is a sin to disobey God. Kierkegaard has described the ways that one can follow God when he gives a command that violates your morality in Fear and Trembling. Through its four tellings of the story of Abraham and Isaac, Kierkegaard explores the relationship between what he labels the ethical and what he labels the religious. In the book, Kierkegaard explicitly states that in his opinion one can do something that is ethically wrong, but religiously right.
Kierkegaard felt that one must have an existential stance to follow God in spite of one's ethics. That the voice of God trumped all other characteristics. He has been profoundly influential, and was a major inspiration to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who further refined Kierkegaard's ideas in The Cost of Discipleship.
It is interesting to note that in no description of the religious stance did Kierkegaard describe a method to distinguish between hallucinations and the voice of God. In fact, to my knowledge there has never been a clear instruction given to Christians that allows them reliably to distinguish between the voice of God and a hallucination.
Yet this is not a minor point.
In one cell in a mental institution in Texas, there are two women whom killed their children to please God. The first is Andrea Yates. She believed God had told her to have as many children as is possible, and soon she decided that she was unworthy to bring them up. Her five children, named after Bible characters: Noah, John, Luke, Paul, and Mary, were all at risk of hell because of her failures. In 2001, she became convinced that the only way she could save their eternal souls was to do away with them before they could sin.
A psychiatric examination was ordered for Andrea. One psychiatrist, featured on Mugshots, asked Andrea what she thought would happen to the children. She indicated that she believed God would "take them up." He reversed the question and asked what might have happened if she had not taken their lives.
"I guess they would have continued stumbling," which meant "they would have gone to hell."
He wanted to know specifically what they had done to give her the idea they weren't behaving properly. She responded that they didn't treat Rusty's mother well, adding that, "They didn't do things God likes."
Andrea believed the only way her children could have eternal life that wasn't torment was if she killed all five of them. She believed this after careful study, prayer and consultation with her church. Andrea presumed she knew the mind of God and that he was speaking to her through the testimony of her church and family.
In the cell with Andrea is Dena Schlosser. Dena cut the arms off her baby in 2004. She saw a news report on television about a boy being mauled to death by a lion and decided that it was a sign of the apocalypse. She then heard God's voice telling her to remove her own baby's arms and then her own. After putting on the song “He Touched Me”, she cut the baby's arms off, resulting in his death.
It is clear that both Andrea Yates and Dena Schlosser are ill individuals. Yet it is remarkable that there are two women who did this within 3 years of one another in the same state in America. It is also clear that the primary cause of both of these unbelievable acts of filicide is that both women believed God was very active in the world, that they knew what he wanted them to do, and that they would be punished severely if they failed to do it. My questions to those who believe that atheism is dangerous, that it allows you to “do whatever you want,” and that universal moral values are upheld by religion are these:
Why can God not make it plain that it is wrong to kill your children? Why can he not make that plain broadly, by putting it in bright letters somewhere on every 3rd or 4th page on the books he writes, dictates or inspires? And why can he not make it plain specifically by speaking that information into the diseased brains of psychotics who are already hearing voices and aren't likely to be believed by another living human regardless of what they say God told them?
What possible good comes to the world from the actions of these mothers?
Kierkegaard felt that one must have an existential stance to follow God in spite of one's ethics. That the voice of God trumped all other characteristics. He has been profoundly influential, and was a major inspiration to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who further refined Kierkegaard's ideas in The Cost of Discipleship.
It is interesting to note that in no description of the religious stance did Kierkegaard describe a method to distinguish between hallucinations and the voice of God. In fact, to my knowledge there has never been a clear instruction given to Christians that allows them reliably to distinguish between the voice of God and a hallucination.
Yet this is not a minor point.
In one cell in a mental institution in Texas, there are two women whom killed their children to please God. The first is Andrea Yates. She believed God had told her to have as many children as is possible, and soon she decided that she was unworthy to bring them up. Her five children, named after Bible characters: Noah, John, Luke, Paul, and Mary, were all at risk of hell because of her failures. In 2001, she became convinced that the only way she could save their eternal souls was to do away with them before they could sin.
A psychiatric examination was ordered for Andrea. One psychiatrist, featured on Mugshots, asked Andrea what she thought would happen to the children. She indicated that she believed God would "take them up." He reversed the question and asked what might have happened if she had not taken their lives.
"I guess they would have continued stumbling," which meant "they would have gone to hell."
He wanted to know specifically what they had done to give her the idea they weren't behaving properly. She responded that they didn't treat Rusty's mother well, adding that, "They didn't do things God likes."
Andrea believed the only way her children could have eternal life that wasn't torment was if she killed all five of them. She believed this after careful study, prayer and consultation with her church. Andrea presumed she knew the mind of God and that he was speaking to her through the testimony of her church and family.
In the cell with Andrea is Dena Schlosser. Dena cut the arms off her baby in 2004. She saw a news report on television about a boy being mauled to death by a lion and decided that it was a sign of the apocalypse. She then heard God's voice telling her to remove her own baby's arms and then her own. After putting on the song “He Touched Me”, she cut the baby's arms off, resulting in his death.
It is clear that both Andrea Yates and Dena Schlosser are ill individuals. Yet it is remarkable that there are two women who did this within 3 years of one another in the same state in America. It is also clear that the primary cause of both of these unbelievable acts of filicide is that both women believed God was very active in the world, that they knew what he wanted them to do, and that they would be punished severely if they failed to do it. My questions to those who believe that atheism is dangerous, that it allows you to “do whatever you want,” and that universal moral values are upheld by religion are these:
Why can God not make it plain that it is wrong to kill your children? Why can he not make that plain broadly, by putting it in bright letters somewhere on every 3rd or 4th page on the books he writes, dictates or inspires? And why can he not make it plain specifically by speaking that information into the diseased brains of psychotics who are already hearing voices and aren't likely to be believed by another living human regardless of what they say God told them?
What possible good comes to the world from the actions of these mothers?
The Answers or the Quest
Those of us who have moved beyond fundamentalism or even Christianity need to help others understand that our changes are spiritual growth, not spiritual abandonment. In fact, I would argue that they honor the moral heart of Christianity more than any adherence to traditional orthodoxies ever can. Let me explain:
One of the most central themes of Judaism and then Christianity is an ongoing hunger, a quest to understand God more deeply and completely. For over 3000 years, our spiritual ancestors have been working hard to figure out answers to life’s most important questions: What is good? What is real (often framed as what is God)? And how can we live in moral community with each other?
Each generation of our ancestors received a package of handed down answers to these questions. This package contained the very best answers their ancestors had to the questions. But those answers were always imperfect. They had bits of timeless wisdom and insights, but they also had bits of culture and superstition that had somehow gotten God’s name on them. In order to grow, our ancestors took these received traditions and asked: What here is mere human construction, what is superstition, and what are my very best judgments about the divine realities that lie beyond the human piece?
The first Hebrew scholars, the writers of the Torah or Pentateuch did this. They sifted through the earlier religions of the Akkadians and Sumerians. They kept parts (some of which are in the Bible to this day), and other parts they discarded as mere culture, superstition or even idolatry.
In the New Testament, the same thing happened. In the gospels, Jesus said that the Law had become an idol in itself. What is an idol? An idol is a something man-made, something that seeks to represent or articulate god-ness and thus to provide a glimpse of that Ultimate Reality. But then, the object itself gets given the attributes of divinity: perfection and completeness, and it becomes the object of absolute devotion.
Instead of simply accepting the old package of answers, the writers of the gospels offered a new understanding of God and goodness. They didn’t throw away everything; in fact they kept quite a bit from the earlier Hebrew religion and from the religions that surrounded them. But they took responsibility to sort through it. They gathered the pieces that that seemed truly wise and sacred to them, and they told a new story about our relationship to God and to each other.
During the Protestant Reformation this process happened again in a very big way. Even thought Martin Luther and John Calvin had some horrible bigoted and violent ideas, in their own context, they genuinely were trying to cleanse Christianity of what they saw as accumulated superstitions, things like worshiping saints and relics, paying indulgences, the absolute authority of the Pope, and the church putting God’s name on the political structure that kept kings and nobles at the top with other people serving them. They scraped away these superstitions, until they got back to a set of religious agreements that had been made a long time before, in the 4th Century when the church decided what writings would go in the Bible and what the creeds would be. Then they stopped there, thinking they had found the most true understanding of God.
But Christianity just kept on growing. During the 18th and 19th Centuries, scientific learning mushroomed with discoveries in fields as diverse as linguistics, anthropology, psychiatry, physics, and biology. By the beginning of the 20th century, with all this new information about ourselves and the world around us, many Christian theologians said, “We need to rethink our understanding of the Bible, Jesus, and the Christian faith.” A new phase of Reformation was born. This generation decided that they should examine every bit of Christianity for signs of human fingerprints. They went way back and opened up even the agreements that had been made by those Church councils of the 4th century. the ones who decided what would be in the Bible. They even began looking at other religions with new eyes and seeing bits of wisdom there.
When this happened, some people fought back in defense of the fundamental doctrines that had dominated Christianity for almost 1500 years, the doctrines that are laid out in the creeds: one god in three persons, original sin and universal sin, the virgin birth, the unique divinity of Jesus, cleansing of sin through blood sacrifice, salvation through right belief, a literal resurrection, a literal heaven and hell. A series of pamphlets entitled "The Fundamentals" said that these beliefs were absolute and off limits to questions. From the title of these pamphlets we get the word "fundamentalism." The fundamentalists said, “If you don’t believe these things, then you can’t call yourself a Christian and besides you are going to hell.” They said that their kind of Christianity was the most true because it was the closest to the religion of our ancestors.
I used to think that, too. But now I realize I was mistaken. By trying to keep the same beliefs as our ancestors, fundamentalism forced me to betray the very heart of Christianity: the quest to better know and serve a God who is Love and Truth. To keep the traditional beliefs of our ancestors we have to abandon their tradition of spiritual inquiry, of “wrestling with God.” We can accept their answers or we can accept their quest, but we cannot accept both
I now affirm that the best way to honor the Christian tradition, to honor the writers of the Pentateuch, and the writers of the gospels and the reformers—and ultimately to honor the Ground of Love and Truth-- is to do as they have done. We need to take the set of teachings they handed down to us, their very best effort to answer life’s most important questions. Then, just like them, we need to continue examining those answers in light of what we know about ourselves and the world around us. For each of us this is a sacred responsibility and a sacred gift, the gift and responsibility of spiritual growth.
It might seem to some like I have abandoned the path I was on, to love and serve God. But I haven’t. I am still on that very same path, only my understanding of God has grown deeper and wider. That is why the songs and preaching and churches that used to fit for me don’t fit any more. And, in fact, even the word “God” seems terribly humanoid and limiting as a term for the astounding Reality that spiritual and scientific inquiry allow us to glimpse.
Religious people, at least Christians, often draw boundaries between believers and non-believers. So do former Christians. But I think we need to talk publicly about a different sort of differentiation, one between those who honor the answers of our spiritual ancestors and those who honor their quest. Even within the boundaries of tribal religion, there are people who honor the former and people who honor the latter. I suspect there are also many who would move from the answers to the quest if only they understood the story at the heart of their own tradition.
One of the most central themes of Judaism and then Christianity is an ongoing hunger, a quest to understand God more deeply and completely. For over 3000 years, our spiritual ancestors have been working hard to figure out answers to life’s most important questions: What is good? What is real (often framed as what is God)? And how can we live in moral community with each other?
Each generation of our ancestors received a package of handed down answers to these questions. This package contained the very best answers their ancestors had to the questions. But those answers were always imperfect. They had bits of timeless wisdom and insights, but they also had bits of culture and superstition that had somehow gotten God’s name on them. In order to grow, our ancestors took these received traditions and asked: What here is mere human construction, what is superstition, and what are my very best judgments about the divine realities that lie beyond the human piece?
The first Hebrew scholars, the writers of the Torah or Pentateuch did this. They sifted through the earlier religions of the Akkadians and Sumerians. They kept parts (some of which are in the Bible to this day), and other parts they discarded as mere culture, superstition or even idolatry.
In the New Testament, the same thing happened. In the gospels, Jesus said that the Law had become an idol in itself. What is an idol? An idol is a something man-made, something that seeks to represent or articulate god-ness and thus to provide a glimpse of that Ultimate Reality. But then, the object itself gets given the attributes of divinity: perfection and completeness, and it becomes the object of absolute devotion.
Instead of simply accepting the old package of answers, the writers of the gospels offered a new understanding of God and goodness. They didn’t throw away everything; in fact they kept quite a bit from the earlier Hebrew religion and from the religions that surrounded them. But they took responsibility to sort through it. They gathered the pieces that that seemed truly wise and sacred to them, and they told a new story about our relationship to God and to each other.
During the Protestant Reformation this process happened again in a very big way. Even thought Martin Luther and John Calvin had some horrible bigoted and violent ideas, in their own context, they genuinely were trying to cleanse Christianity of what they saw as accumulated superstitions, things like worshiping saints and relics, paying indulgences, the absolute authority of the Pope, and the church putting God’s name on the political structure that kept kings and nobles at the top with other people serving them. They scraped away these superstitions, until they got back to a set of religious agreements that had been made a long time before, in the 4th Century when the church decided what writings would go in the Bible and what the creeds would be. Then they stopped there, thinking they had found the most true understanding of God.
But Christianity just kept on growing. During the 18th and 19th Centuries, scientific learning mushroomed with discoveries in fields as diverse as linguistics, anthropology, psychiatry, physics, and biology. By the beginning of the 20th century, with all this new information about ourselves and the world around us, many Christian theologians said, “We need to rethink our understanding of the Bible, Jesus, and the Christian faith.” A new phase of Reformation was born. This generation decided that they should examine every bit of Christianity for signs of human fingerprints. They went way back and opened up even the agreements that had been made by those Church councils of the 4th century. the ones who decided what would be in the Bible. They even began looking at other religions with new eyes and seeing bits of wisdom there.
When this happened, some people fought back in defense of the fundamental doctrines that had dominated Christianity for almost 1500 years, the doctrines that are laid out in the creeds: one god in three persons, original sin and universal sin, the virgin birth, the unique divinity of Jesus, cleansing of sin through blood sacrifice, salvation through right belief, a literal resurrection, a literal heaven and hell. A series of pamphlets entitled "The Fundamentals" said that these beliefs were absolute and off limits to questions. From the title of these pamphlets we get the word "fundamentalism." The fundamentalists said, “If you don’t believe these things, then you can’t call yourself a Christian and besides you are going to hell.” They said that their kind of Christianity was the most true because it was the closest to the religion of our ancestors.
I used to think that, too. But now I realize I was mistaken. By trying to keep the same beliefs as our ancestors, fundamentalism forced me to betray the very heart of Christianity: the quest to better know and serve a God who is Love and Truth. To keep the traditional beliefs of our ancestors we have to abandon their tradition of spiritual inquiry, of “wrestling with God.” We can accept their answers or we can accept their quest, but we cannot accept both
I now affirm that the best way to honor the Christian tradition, to honor the writers of the Pentateuch, and the writers of the gospels and the reformers—and ultimately to honor the Ground of Love and Truth-- is to do as they have done. We need to take the set of teachings they handed down to us, their very best effort to answer life’s most important questions. Then, just like them, we need to continue examining those answers in light of what we know about ourselves and the world around us. For each of us this is a sacred responsibility and a sacred gift, the gift and responsibility of spiritual growth.
It might seem to some like I have abandoned the path I was on, to love and serve God. But I haven’t. I am still on that very same path, only my understanding of God has grown deeper and wider. That is why the songs and preaching and churches that used to fit for me don’t fit any more. And, in fact, even the word “God” seems terribly humanoid and limiting as a term for the astounding Reality that spiritual and scientific inquiry allow us to glimpse.
Religious people, at least Christians, often draw boundaries between believers and non-believers. So do former Christians. But I think we need to talk publicly about a different sort of differentiation, one between those who honor the answers of our spiritual ancestors and those who honor their quest. Even within the boundaries of tribal religion, there are people who honor the former and people who honor the latter. I suspect there are also many who would move from the answers to the quest if only they understood the story at the heart of their own tradition.
Reason and Protestant Christianity in Their Own Words
I have long found William Lane Craig's proclamation of a "reasonable faith" to be deliciously ironic. Since The 95 Theses were first nailed on the door of Castle Church, Martin Luther made it abundantly clear what the role of reason was in the Protestant faith. Note that this was not some uneducated medieval wretch in the 12th century; this is the highly educated Augustinian monk, professor at a prestigious university, and probably the most important founder of the Protestant movement. Shall we take a look?
"Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."
― Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142‐148
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon…This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
― Table Talks in 1539
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
― Table Talks in 1569
"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians."
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason."
"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason…Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed."
― The Faith of a Heretic
"Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source, and bathe their heads in the blood of the Catholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is the devil in disguise."
― Riffel, Kirchengeschichte
And the most delisciously ironic of all:
"Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads…"
In the interest of space, I have left out multitudes of quotes where Luther attributes many things known at the time to be naturalistic as being devils, demons, and witchery (not to mention his virulent anti-Semitism and misogyny).
Protestant Christianity was founded in direct opposition to reason. And now people claim to be able to reconcile the two? It would be funny were it not so sad.
"Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."
― Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142‐148
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon…This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
― Table Talks in 1539
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
― Table Talks in 1569
"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians."
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason."
"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason…Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed."
― The Faith of a Heretic
"Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source, and bathe their heads in the blood of the Catholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is the devil in disguise."
― Riffel, Kirchengeschichte
And the most delisciously ironic of all:
"Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads…"
In the interest of space, I have left out multitudes of quotes where Luther attributes many things known at the time to be naturalistic as being devils, demons, and witchery (not to mention his virulent anti-Semitism and misogyny).
Protestant Christianity was founded in direct opposition to reason. And now people claim to be able to reconcile the two? It would be funny were it not so sad.
Is This How We Should Do Exegesis?: A Biblical Case Study
Here's but one example of how the New Testament uses a mistranslated word from which a faulty interpretation of the Old Testament is made, adapted from a previous post and highlighted for discussion. Is this not stupid? Is this not a problem for inerrancy?
Let's take a good look at Psalm 8:3-8 (New American Standard Bible, NASB). What we'll find is a mistranslated word, a misinterpreted Psalm, and a pre-scientific cosmology:
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;
The Psalmist is not conceiving of the type of universe we do today, as we’ve seen…by far.
What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
Notice this is a case of Hebrew parallelism for future reference below. The first phrase is paralleled by the second one, even though no parallel phrase is exactly similar in all respects. “Man" = "son of man”; “thought of” = “care for.” This is basic wisdom literature exegesis here.
So if by the word “man” the Biblical writer thought of the phrase “son of man,” then this same phrase, when applied to Jesus, must mean little more than what it means here. If, however, the phrase “son of man,” when applied to Jesus, means “son of God,” then all human beings should be considered "sons of God.”
According to Bruce Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, "the phrase such as 'son of X' means 'having the qualities of X.' Thus the 'son of man' would mean having the qualities of man, hence human." [Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 2nd ed, p. 408).
In any case, Hebrews 2 is obviously a misinterpretation of this Psalm, since Hebrews claims Psalm 8 is speaking exclusively about Jesus as the “son of man” in comparison to angels (a comparison made throughout Hebrews), whereas Psalm 8 is really speaking about how human beings rule over creation, who are just a little lower than God himself in status. The Hebrews writer misunderstood Psalms 8 to be primarily messianic, about Jesus, but there is no reason to read it as such in the Psalm itself…none!
The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (2:784), admits of the Hebrews writer: "No doubt the familiar messianic designation “Son of Man” (v. 6) contributed to this understanding." Or, shall I more correctly say, misunderstanding!
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
Again, a Hebrew parallelism. God is crowned with unique glory and majesty that none other receives, so also God crowns man with glory and majesty no other creation receives.
Here’s how the Hebrew writer understood this verse, according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary: "while total dominion over the created order is not yet His, Jesus is at last seen as crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death. The One so crowned was made a little lower than the angels for the very purpose of dying, that is, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. This last statement is best understood as the purpose of the Lord’s being made lower than the angels in His Incarnation." Again, there is no reason to read the Psalm this way…none! If anyone else misinterpreted a text in this manner Christians themselves would laugh at him or her.
Psalm 8:5 uses the word Elohim translated "God" (NASB) whereas the Hebrews writer followed the Septuagint (LXX) in translating this word αγγελους “angels.” Thus in Psalms 8 we find that human beings were created as God’s ruler-representatives on earth, over all his creation, although lower than God. But in Hebrews we read that it's Jesus who was made lower than “the angels” in the incarnation, so that he could redeem mankind. Thus Hebrews interpretation is fundamentally flawed based on this mistranslated word.
Evangelicals want to affirm the fact that since the author of Hebrews (2:7) renders the word "Elohim" (God or gods) as αγγελους (angels) it establishes the intended meaning of Psalm 8:5. But this opinion is nothing different than saying: "The Bible said it; I believe it; that settles it." It’s just illegitimate to claim to have a correct understanding of an original Hebrew word by referring exclusively to a Greek translation of that word. It's also illegitimate to take a particular passage out of context and claim to properly understand that passage. Hebrews 2 is clearly based on a misinterpretation of the text of Psalm 8, as well as a mistranslation of a word in it. Is the LXX inspired when it translates "Elohim" (God or gods) as αγγελους (angels)? Tell me! And does inspiration guarantee that what the Bible says is accurate even when it can clearly be shown to be incorrect? How is this even possible?
Biblical scholar Hector Avalos informs me about the translation of Elohim and wrote this:
You make him to rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
Again Hebrew parallelism. Notice the phrase “works of Your hands” here. That phrase can only parallel the earlier phrase “the work of Your fingers” in verse 3 above, and this refers to “the heavens,” which include “the moon and the stars.”
Only one evangelical conclusion about the central role of man can come from for a correct reading of Psalm 8, human beings are the highest creation, above angels, and any other alien life form.
All sheep and oxen,
And also the beasts of the field,
The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea,
Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.
This is what the Psalmist thought all creation involved. It’s crystal clear he said mankind rules over all the works of God’s hands earlier, and here he tells us what this means. There are no references to aliens or angels or galxies far far away. He just didn’t think of them, or they just didn’t compare to the status of mankind. But it is surely refective of a prescientific cosmology, and as such, considered as disconfirming evidence that there is a God behind the human words in the Bible.
Let's take a good look at Psalm 8:3-8 (New American Standard Bible, NASB). What we'll find is a mistranslated word, a misinterpreted Psalm, and a pre-scientific cosmology:
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;
The Psalmist is not conceiving of the type of universe we do today, as we’ve seen…by far.
What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
Notice this is a case of Hebrew parallelism for future reference below. The first phrase is paralleled by the second one, even though no parallel phrase is exactly similar in all respects. “Man" = "son of man”; “thought of” = “care for.” This is basic wisdom literature exegesis here.
So if by the word “man” the Biblical writer thought of the phrase “son of man,” then this same phrase, when applied to Jesus, must mean little more than what it means here. If, however, the phrase “son of man,” when applied to Jesus, means “son of God,” then all human beings should be considered "sons of God.”
According to Bruce Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, "the phrase such as 'son of X' means 'having the qualities of X.' Thus the 'son of man' would mean having the qualities of man, hence human." [Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 2nd ed, p. 408).
In any case, Hebrews 2 is obviously a misinterpretation of this Psalm, since Hebrews claims Psalm 8 is speaking exclusively about Jesus as the “son of man” in comparison to angels (a comparison made throughout Hebrews), whereas Psalm 8 is really speaking about how human beings rule over creation, who are just a little lower than God himself in status. The Hebrews writer misunderstood Psalms 8 to be primarily messianic, about Jesus, but there is no reason to read it as such in the Psalm itself…none!
The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (2:784), admits of the Hebrews writer: "No doubt the familiar messianic designation “Son of Man” (v. 6) contributed to this understanding." Or, shall I more correctly say, misunderstanding!
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
Again, a Hebrew parallelism. God is crowned with unique glory and majesty that none other receives, so also God crowns man with glory and majesty no other creation receives.
Here’s how the Hebrew writer understood this verse, according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary: "while total dominion over the created order is not yet His, Jesus is at last seen as crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death. The One so crowned was made a little lower than the angels for the very purpose of dying, that is, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. This last statement is best understood as the purpose of the Lord’s being made lower than the angels in His Incarnation." Again, there is no reason to read the Psalm this way…none! If anyone else misinterpreted a text in this manner Christians themselves would laugh at him or her.
Psalm 8:5 uses the word Elohim translated "God" (NASB) whereas the Hebrews writer followed the Septuagint (LXX) in translating this word αγγελους “angels.” Thus in Psalms 8 we find that human beings were created as God’s ruler-representatives on earth, over all his creation, although lower than God. But in Hebrews we read that it's Jesus who was made lower than “the angels” in the incarnation, so that he could redeem mankind. Thus Hebrews interpretation is fundamentally flawed based on this mistranslated word.
Evangelicals want to affirm the fact that since the author of Hebrews (2:7) renders the word "Elohim" (God or gods) as αγγελους (angels) it establishes the intended meaning of Psalm 8:5. But this opinion is nothing different than saying: "The Bible said it; I believe it; that settles it." It’s just illegitimate to claim to have a correct understanding of an original Hebrew word by referring exclusively to a Greek translation of that word. It's also illegitimate to take a particular passage out of context and claim to properly understand that passage. Hebrews 2 is clearly based on a misinterpretation of the text of Psalm 8, as well as a mistranslation of a word in it. Is the LXX inspired when it translates "Elohim" (God or gods) as αγγελους (angels)? Tell me! And does inspiration guarantee that what the Bible says is accurate even when it can clearly be shown to be incorrect? How is this even possible?
Biblical scholar Hector Avalos informs me about the translation of Elohim and wrote this:
The translation of 'elohim’ as "god(s)" in Psalm 8:5 (English; verse numbers may differ in some translations) is not controversial anymore, and is accepted in the following translations:Man was created a little lower than the gods, which reflects a polytheistic religious viewpoint. In order to soften the polytheistic implications of this the translators do some interesting things with this Hebrew word.
NRSV: "lower than God."
REV: "less than a god"
NAB: "less than a god"
NJB: "less than a god."
To be more literally accurate, "less than the gods" would be better because Elohim is plural.
This is also the opinion of Mitchell Dahood, the Catholic biblical scholar, in his commentary on the Psalms I:-1-50 (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1965), p. 51. He translates it, "Yet you have made him a little less than the gods" on p. 48.
You make him to rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
Again Hebrew parallelism. Notice the phrase “works of Your hands” here. That phrase can only parallel the earlier phrase “the work of Your fingers” in verse 3 above, and this refers to “the heavens,” which include “the moon and the stars.”
Only one evangelical conclusion about the central role of man can come from for a correct reading of Psalm 8, human beings are the highest creation, above angels, and any other alien life form.
All sheep and oxen,
And also the beasts of the field,
The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea,
Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.
This is what the Psalmist thought all creation involved. It’s crystal clear he said mankind rules over all the works of God’s hands earlier, and here he tells us what this means. There are no references to aliens or angels or galxies far far away. He just didn’t think of them, or they just didn’t compare to the status of mankind. But it is surely refective of a prescientific cosmology, and as such, considered as disconfirming evidence that there is a God behind the human words in the Bible.
February 26, 2008
Hear Ye...Hear Ye! Frank Walton is Gone!
He's no longer a contributor over at Atheism Sucks. I will now link to that Blog. It has some better, more respectable Christians on it.
Atheist Morality and the Logic of Jeffrey Dahmer
Jamie Steele wrote a comment about the morality of atheism, and in it quoted the following statement from serial killer and cannibalist, Jeffrey Dahmer: "If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…" [An interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994].
Such statements as these from a known killer are very troubling to me and a source for apologists to berate those of us who are atheists. Let me be perfectly frank here. The logic of Dahmer is sound if I grant him two assumptions that I vehemently reject (anyone wishing to quote this sentence of mine must quote it all, not just the first six words).
What are those two assumptions? First, for Dahmer’s argument to work an atheist must assume that the only reasons to refrain from doing evil are because of the supposed eternal horrible consequences he will suffer when he dies because God will hold him accountable for what he does. By this logic if there are no consequences when he dies then there is nothing to keep him from doing evil.
I vehemently deny this assumption. As I’ve argued elsewhere there are plenty of good solid reasons for doing good, being kind, helpful and generous with people, based solely on the consequences in this life, which is all any of us will ever have, Christians included.
Secondly, there are solid reasons based in the psychology of who we are with our survival instinct that leads us all to think being happy and living life in harmony with others demands that we like ourselves first and foremost. A Freudian death wish is simply unhealthy and counter-productive to what makes for human happiness. So for one reason or another Dahmer first hated himself. He didn’t care what would personally happen to him as he pursued his most base desires; desires that are sick indeed and counter-productive to living life in a crime free society, which is what people who desire happiness want.
Beyond these things, Dahmer was a sick man, a deviant, a sociopath. This just proves to me that anyone can use almost anything to justify his or her actions. If he was a Christian he would’ve said, “God told me to do this,” and we have plenty of examples of that kind of rationale, which is also quite logical, given certain assumptions that most reasonable Christians would likewise reject.
Such statements as these from a known killer are very troubling to me and a source for apologists to berate those of us who are atheists. Let me be perfectly frank here. The logic of Dahmer is sound if I grant him two assumptions that I vehemently reject (anyone wishing to quote this sentence of mine must quote it all, not just the first six words).
What are those two assumptions? First, for Dahmer’s argument to work an atheist must assume that the only reasons to refrain from doing evil are because of the supposed eternal horrible consequences he will suffer when he dies because God will hold him accountable for what he does. By this logic if there are no consequences when he dies then there is nothing to keep him from doing evil.
I vehemently deny this assumption. As I’ve argued elsewhere there are plenty of good solid reasons for doing good, being kind, helpful and generous with people, based solely on the consequences in this life, which is all any of us will ever have, Christians included.
Secondly, there are solid reasons based in the psychology of who we are with our survival instinct that leads us all to think being happy and living life in harmony with others demands that we like ourselves first and foremost. A Freudian death wish is simply unhealthy and counter-productive to what makes for human happiness. So for one reason or another Dahmer first hated himself. He didn’t care what would personally happen to him as he pursued his most base desires; desires that are sick indeed and counter-productive to living life in a crime free society, which is what people who desire happiness want.
Beyond these things, Dahmer was a sick man, a deviant, a sociopath. This just proves to me that anyone can use almost anything to justify his or her actions. If he was a Christian he would’ve said, “God told me to do this,” and we have plenty of examples of that kind of rationale, which is also quite logical, given certain assumptions that most reasonable Christians would likewise reject.
I No Longer Believe. What Do I Tell My Kids?
Here is an email I recently received. Any additional helpful advice would be appreciated. [Used with permission]
Hi John,
My de-conversion happened over a 10 year period in full-time ministry. I left ministry 12/31/06 with my integrity in tack. Now I just opened up my de-conversion to my family last summer. My wife, not surprisingly, was relieved. My kids, who we had sent to a fundy Christian school, were disturbed. I assured them I was not going to hell and that I still believed in “God” as much as I thought was possible to believe anymore. That comforted them for a while until we stopped going to church. My oldest child is very spiritual. She enjoys church and misses the Christian school. I too and a very spiritual man. I’ve found some solace in exploring Buddhist philosophy and I enjoy what I’m learning. I’m not fully come to an atheist I’m more agnostic but I’m not a believer in the God of the Bible.
I’ve been reading, devouring many books about the lies of Christianity. Sam Harris’ books have been huge eye openers. As was the DVD “The God Who Wasn’t There.” All of these just conformed my suspicions about my faith. I bought into a fairy tale in 1983 at the age of 15. I had a radical conversion and after high school I began the path toward full time ministry. After a stint in the Army to get some college money, I went to Bible college and seminary. I served in 2 churches as youth pastor. I ran a growing and successful AWANA program. I served on full-time missionary staff with Campus Crusade for Christ from 1996-2001. I launched and ran my own campus church/ministry from 2001-2006. From 1994-2006 I had growing doubts.
In the last ten years I began to see that no matter how much faith or belief I had God was and did not work. Oh I thought he did. I pretended he did. I duped myself in to believing on some level that he was really there for me. In that time a dear friend who de-converted in 1999 asked me this question: “Steve, what has Jesus really done for you this week, this month, this year?” I came up empty. All the trite answers I could give him were just fluff… stuff I had really stopped believe after many, many disappointments with God.
So I found a way out of ministry without going public with my agnosticism. Christians are so mean when someone falls away. I know I was mean myself a couple of times more than I want to remember. I became a financial advisor and I love it. But I played the game for a while because I deeply feared that I would be outcast. That fear is slowly drifting away.
Here’s my dilemma… I love my kids and I raised them in the Christian way. I really strove to live the life I was “called” to live. I didn’t leave because of “sin” in my life. I wasn’t really looking to leave. I just kept searching for reasons why God was not answering my prayers and helping us. So I left because I could not believe it any more. I could no longer tolerate the let downs. But my kids are feeling the pain of it because they still have “childlike faith.”
Do you have any advice? Are there resources for guys like me to help me free my kids from the God/Jesus myth? I do want to encourage my kids to be spiritual. But I just don’t know how.
Any words you would have for me would be appreciated.
Peace!
Steven A. McDowell
Here is my advice:
Hi John,
My de-conversion happened over a 10 year period in full-time ministry. I left ministry 12/31/06 with my integrity in tack. Now I just opened up my de-conversion to my family last summer. My wife, not surprisingly, was relieved. My kids, who we had sent to a fundy Christian school, were disturbed. I assured them I was not going to hell and that I still believed in “God” as much as I thought was possible to believe anymore. That comforted them for a while until we stopped going to church. My oldest child is very spiritual. She enjoys church and misses the Christian school. I too and a very spiritual man. I’ve found some solace in exploring Buddhist philosophy and I enjoy what I’m learning. I’m not fully come to an atheist I’m more agnostic but I’m not a believer in the God of the Bible.
I’ve been reading, devouring many books about the lies of Christianity. Sam Harris’ books have been huge eye openers. As was the DVD “The God Who Wasn’t There.” All of these just conformed my suspicions about my faith. I bought into a fairy tale in 1983 at the age of 15. I had a radical conversion and after high school I began the path toward full time ministry. After a stint in the Army to get some college money, I went to Bible college and seminary. I served in 2 churches as youth pastor. I ran a growing and successful AWANA program. I served on full-time missionary staff with Campus Crusade for Christ from 1996-2001. I launched and ran my own campus church/ministry from 2001-2006. From 1994-2006 I had growing doubts.
In the last ten years I began to see that no matter how much faith or belief I had God was and did not work. Oh I thought he did. I pretended he did. I duped myself in to believing on some level that he was really there for me. In that time a dear friend who de-converted in 1999 asked me this question: “Steve, what has Jesus really done for you this week, this month, this year?” I came up empty. All the trite answers I could give him were just fluff… stuff I had really stopped believe after many, many disappointments with God.
So I found a way out of ministry without going public with my agnosticism. Christians are so mean when someone falls away. I know I was mean myself a couple of times more than I want to remember. I became a financial advisor and I love it. But I played the game for a while because I deeply feared that I would be outcast. That fear is slowly drifting away.
Here’s my dilemma… I love my kids and I raised them in the Christian way. I really strove to live the life I was “called” to live. I didn’t leave because of “sin” in my life. I wasn’t really looking to leave. I just kept searching for reasons why God was not answering my prayers and helping us. So I left because I could not believe it any more. I could no longer tolerate the let downs. But my kids are feeling the pain of it because they still have “childlike faith.”
Do you have any advice? Are there resources for guys like me to help me free my kids from the God/Jesus myth? I do want to encourage my kids to be spiritual. But I just don’t know how.
Any words you would have for me would be appreciated.
Peace!
Steven A. McDowell
Here is my advice:
Steve, you're not alone.
From what I can tell this book will help you and your wife.
You should get a subscription to Michael Shermer's Skeptic Magazine, since it contains a nice sized section written just for kids.
Beyond that there are skeptical meet ups that may be in your area. Get your kids to meet and play with non-believing kids. Do a search for these groups here.
There are also skeptical groups associated with Center for Inquiry that would help introduce your children to skeptical children.
With your permission I'll post this at DC to see if anyone else has some helpful suggestions.
Best to you,
John W. Loftus
February 25, 2008
God is a Sadistic Egotistical Monster and I Can Show This With Just a Few Questions
The question was raised in a somewhat different context, “Did God need to create a physical universe at all?” Jason flippantly and callously responded by quipping, “Who cares? He did.” It still surprises me at the simplistic non-answers we get from some Christians. Here’s my response…
Just think for one moment, okay? Don't just spit out what you were taught to believe, which is what you do. What did God lack before creation that made him want to create in the first place? Take a moment to truly reflect on that question. I'll repeat it again so you do. What did God lack before creation that made him want to create in the first place?
I know your answer. The answer is that God lacked nothing, as in NOTHING. So what reason would cause God to want to create anything? There was no lack, no want, and no need. That which causes a reasonable person to act is a lack, either his own, or someone else's lack. And even given that God wanted to create something, anything, why did he create this particular world? These are significant questions if you'll take a moment to reflect on them, rather than spitting out proof texts and the blind faith results of your proof-texting.
Your God is supposedly a God of reason. Everything he does is reasonable. Well then, what's his reason for creating something, anything?
There can be no good reason for doing so, not even with an omniscient God, for an omniscient God must still act according to reason. Unless by his logic he can do what is illogical, or by his reason he can do that which is unreasonable, there is no reason for God to have done so.
Even if we grant that God wanted to create something, anything, why would he create this particular world? It is a huge mess. And it is likewise a non-answer to say it’s Adam and Eve’s fault.
If God foreknew this world would become a mess when he had no good reason to create anything in the first place, then why create this particular one?
What kind of world is this one? It's a world where most people wind up in hell. Why create a world like this when most people in it will be punished for an eternity? Consider what Ivan Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s character, said: “Tell me yourself—I challenge you: let’s assume that you were called upon to build the edifice of destiny so that men would finally be happy and would find peace and tranquility. If you knew that, in order to attain this, you would have to torture just one single creature, let’s say a little girl who beat her chest so desperately in the outhouse, and that on her unavenged tears you could build that edifice, would you agree to do it? Tell me and don’t lie!”
If there was no need to create anything, none, and if you foreknew people would suffer in this world and eventually do so for an eternity, would you create this particular world for your own glory, which is what Biblical theism asserts? Would you do so for YOUR OWN GLORY, especially when you already had all glory and there was no need to do so in the first place? Answer the question and do not lie!
Only a sadistic egotistic monster would even consider doing so.
-----------------------
Other types of similar arguments can be found in my book.
Just think for one moment, okay? Don't just spit out what you were taught to believe, which is what you do. What did God lack before creation that made him want to create in the first place? Take a moment to truly reflect on that question. I'll repeat it again so you do. What did God lack before creation that made him want to create in the first place?
I know your answer. The answer is that God lacked nothing, as in NOTHING. So what reason would cause God to want to create anything? There was no lack, no want, and no need. That which causes a reasonable person to act is a lack, either his own, or someone else's lack. And even given that God wanted to create something, anything, why did he create this particular world? These are significant questions if you'll take a moment to reflect on them, rather than spitting out proof texts and the blind faith results of your proof-texting.
Your God is supposedly a God of reason. Everything he does is reasonable. Well then, what's his reason for creating something, anything?
There can be no good reason for doing so, not even with an omniscient God, for an omniscient God must still act according to reason. Unless by his logic he can do what is illogical, or by his reason he can do that which is unreasonable, there is no reason for God to have done so.
Even if we grant that God wanted to create something, anything, why would he create this particular world? It is a huge mess. And it is likewise a non-answer to say it’s Adam and Eve’s fault.
If God foreknew this world would become a mess when he had no good reason to create anything in the first place, then why create this particular one?
What kind of world is this one? It's a world where most people wind up in hell. Why create a world like this when most people in it will be punished for an eternity? Consider what Ivan Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s character, said: “Tell me yourself—I challenge you: let’s assume that you were called upon to build the edifice of destiny so that men would finally be happy and would find peace and tranquility. If you knew that, in order to attain this, you would have to torture just one single creature, let’s say a little girl who beat her chest so desperately in the outhouse, and that on her unavenged tears you could build that edifice, would you agree to do it? Tell me and don’t lie!”
If there was no need to create anything, none, and if you foreknew people would suffer in this world and eventually do so for an eternity, would you create this particular world for your own glory, which is what Biblical theism asserts? Would you do so for YOUR OWN GLORY, especially when you already had all glory and there was no need to do so in the first place? Answer the question and do not lie!
Only a sadistic egotistic monster would even consider doing so.
-----------------------
Other types of similar arguments can be found in my book.
February 24, 2008
Was It Necessary For God to Create this Vast Universe, per Hugh Ross?
Some creationists, like Hugh Ross, claim God needed to create such a vast and old universe in order for the earth to exist with the right conditions to support human life as we know it. Here's my response from a recent post, singled out for discussion:
But this is an extremely lame argument. Why? Because Ross and other Christian theists believe God is omnipotent such that he created the laws of the universe in the first place! So if God is this omnipotent deity and if he created the laws of the universe in the first place, then he could’ve merely created a small planet containing human beings, and that's it. This is just obvious to me. But even if I grant them their point, it doesn’t even matter, for this same God is a miracle working God. Even if it was metaphysically impossible for God to create the earth as it is without a vast universe because he couldn't create nature's laws differently, then this says nothing at all against God performing perpetual miracles. If he is a miracle working God he could indeed have created a terrestrial biosphere that would sustain human life even if the laws of nature would not allow it. All it would take are a few perpetual miracles. As far as theists know, the laws of nature are themselves just perpetual miracles created by God anyway.
But this is an extremely lame argument. Why? Because Ross and other Christian theists believe God is omnipotent such that he created the laws of the universe in the first place! So if God is this omnipotent deity and if he created the laws of the universe in the first place, then he could’ve merely created a small planet containing human beings, and that's it. This is just obvious to me. But even if I grant them their point, it doesn’t even matter, for this same God is a miracle working God. Even if it was metaphysically impossible for God to create the earth as it is without a vast universe because he couldn't create nature's laws differently, then this says nothing at all against God performing perpetual miracles. If he is a miracle working God he could indeed have created a terrestrial biosphere that would sustain human life even if the laws of nature would not allow it. All it would take are a few perpetual miracles. As far as theists know, the laws of nature are themselves just perpetual miracles created by God anyway.
February 22, 2008
My Deconversion
Through childhood and adolescence I had absorbed the intense Seventh-day Adventist religion of my family. I went to church schools from the beginning, only had friends from my church, and was forced to attend services with the fervor and frequency that only someone with a devout mother can understand fully.
I studied the Bible with interest but always found it a little boring (especially the Pauline epistles). If I had to read it, I would always go back to the books of Judges, Joshua, and the writings of the kingly epoch. I loved the stories of Jael and Siserah, of Joshua stopping the sun, of Saul and David. I loved to read about David collecting foreskins from the Philistines (and show it to my friends, giggling about how it was in the Bible). I was a believer in biblical inerrancy and a young-earth creationist just like all those around me. I was the best in my age group at Bible trivia (we called them Bible sword drills) to the point that our Sabbath School teachers would keep me from playing because it wasn't fair to the other kids.
In high school some of my friends were growing disillusioned with our church and I listened to their arguments but didn't find them compelling until I got to college. I wanted to go to medical school eventually, but I initially declared a major in Religion while taking all the science prerequisites needed for my premed aspirations. The second quarter of my freshman year, I took a class in Jesus and the Gospels. This was the first exposure I had had to higher literary criticism of the Bible and my exposure to the textual theories about the Gospels astonished me, and made me realize the all-too-human nature of the text. This also led me to investigate other German theories regarding the Bible including Graf/Wellhausen, which confirmed my concerns.
My study of religion abolished my faith in biblical inerrancy and I changed my major to biology.
I began to see strong evidence for evolution, even though all my professors were young earth creationists. In my junior year I started doing research into theories of taxonomy and their relationship to the creation/evolution debate. It was at this same time I took a course in cell and molecular biology.
It was fascinating to study up close the nuts and bolts that made cells function the way that they do, and to notice that not only was there no evidence of design, there was positive evidence against design. The endosymbiotic theory of Margulis had not yet been fully accepted, but it seemed to me to be the most compelling evidence against young-earth creationism that anyone could imagine.
The facts are this. Briefly, life is divided into several domains, bacteria, archaeans and eukaryotes. All the eukaryotes have a nucleus that separates their genes from the cell substance (cytoplasm). Animal and plant cells are all eukaryotes. Any eukaryote that can live in oxygen uses energy by oxidizing carbohydrates, such as sugars and starches.
All animal and plant cells that use oxygen burn it in a controlled fashion with an organelle called a mitochondrion. The mitochondrion has its own membrane. The mitochondrion has its own genome. The mitochondrion splits into two and divides by fission like a bacterium does. All plant cells that do photosynthesis do this photosynthesis using chloroplasts. Chloroplasts also have their own membranes and genomes and also split into two and divide by fission like bacteria do. The most curious part for me was this: there are cells that are eukaryotes but they do not have mitochondria or chloroplasts and they use energy by fermenting sugars and starches.
Fermentation happens in the cytoplasm of all eukaryotic cells but the burning of oxygen happens only in the mitochondrion. It became obvious to me that all multicellular life arose from a lucky symbiosis. When it became necessary to burn oxygen, eukaryotic cells were simply cobbled together out of two other cell types, one that fermented and one that oxidized. It seemed absolutely clear to me when I discovered this fact that life itself, down to its cellular level, was the product of accidents and was in fact an elaborate contraption. It was marvelous indeed in its function, but any appearance of design seemed to completely evaporate. After the scales lifted from my eyes it became clear what a confidence game young-earth creationism was. Life's function was entirely explainable by natural (as opposed to supernatural or vitalist) processes.
So I had lost my young-earth creationism and my belief in biblical inerrancy, but I still had the same family: a father and brother who were pastors, and a devout mother. My sister had abandoned religion very early in her life and I was worried that if I did so as well, it would hurt the structure of my family.
For many years I tried to pretend I was a “liberal” Christian, who believed in morality inspired by a remote, semi-deist God, but the more I studied works of theology and philosophy the more I realized there was no fact universally agreed upon, no doctrine beyond dispute, and no practice that didn't bring opprobrium from someone within Christianity and approval from someone else within Christianity. In short, “liberal” Christianity was a pseudonym for “humanism that won't scare your parents”.
Shortly after finishing my residency I was assigned to live in Turkey while I served time in the military. This experience clinched my conviction that religion was wholly man made. There I encountered the same false certainty, the same fervor for dogma, the same disputation over the meaning of holy texts, and the same lack of agreement that I found in Christianity, even the same platitudinous and empty bumper sticker sloganeering and the only thing different was that the religion was now that of Islam. Every argument that Christians make to convince you of the truth of their religion has a mirror image in Islam.
While living there, I was frequently asked what I believed. Since I was unable to defend Christianity, the existence of God, or any evidence of design in the universe, I decided to answer affirmatively, “I am an atheist.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)