Debate with Jerry McDonald: My Final Rebuttal

With my fifth rebuttal now up (please read!), the final round of my debate with Jerry McDonald is now complete. All that remains is for Jerry to write his concluding summary.

update: Jerry's summary remarks is now up, which concludes this debate. Those who don't have an account on FRDB can view Jerry's remarks here on his website

Debate with Jerry McDonald: Jerry's Fifth Affirmative

Jerry McDonald’s fifth and final affirmative is now up; mine will appear shortly (a few days, at most). Those who can’t see the debate at FRDB (because they don’t have an account) can read his latest statement at Jerry’s website

Read My Review of John Beversluis's Book, C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion, in Philosophy Now.

As you can see I highly recommend his book.

Another One Comes Out to His Family and Finds it Okay!

I get emails from people who have left the Christian fold who fear coming out to tell the people they love. In one of them recently I was told by parents who raised several believing children, some of whom are in the ministry, it is "impossible" for them to tell their kids the truth. Bullshit! It's not impossible, although it may be hard, and there may be adverse consequences, and you may want to wait to do so in the future at a more appropriate time. But it's not impossible. Many of these kind of fears are simply unjustified. Here's one example of what I mean:

A friend of mine on Facebook named Luke Haugen was extremely fearful to tell his parents. They visited with him and he just couldn't tell them. But even though he expected the worse he called them after they visited him and then he told them. With his permission here's what he said:

I had a great week with my parents. They had an awesome vacation out here. I think my Dad didn't want to leave. They also fell in love with my girlfriend, which I knew they would just like I did. I talked it over with my sister at the beginning of the week and told her that I was going to do it and she got really worried that when I told them they would freak out and it would ruin their vacation. So I decided to wait until they got back home and got settled in for a few days to call my Dad. He was surprisingly much more understanding that I was anticipating. I gave him a few of my reasons and asked him a few questions that he had a really hard time answering with the most common answer being "I don't know." He even said that I should have told him while he was here, which, I wish I would've done now but either way, at least they know who I really am. Overall it went very smoothly and they still do love me and I love them. I am sure you can relate to how awesome it feels to get that huge weight off of your shoulders especially after it has been burdening you for a number of years and you have had to "fake it" in certain situations. I am much more comfortable and at peace with where I stand now that everyone knows who I really am.

It feels so great to finally have my family know who I really am!

To read some of my advice to people who leave the fold check this link out.

Debate with Jerry McDonald: Fourth Round

The fourth round of my debate with preacher Jerry McDonald is now complete—there is one final round left (consisting of one affirmative and one rebuttal statement), plus Jerry’s concluding summary.

Should We Just Stop Talking About God? That's What One Columnist Thinks

See what you think. Click here. *ahem* He mentions lil ole me. ;-)

The Logical Problem Of Evil Reformulated

Advice to People Who Leave the Fold

People email me from time to time asking for advice now that they no longer believe. I've written a chapter in my companion book on that topic, but for people who don't have that book this is where I'll place links below about this problem.

I'll begin with an actual email that's typical of the ones I receive:

Greetings. I know you must get tons of email everyday, and thus cannot respond to each one. I’m hoping just writing this will help. I’ll keep my story short. It is similar to yours in many ways, although I confess I did not go as deeply into the intellectual end of Christianity as you did, however I consider myself a fairly intelligent person. Certainly, at least, a thoughtful one... I was converted to Pentecostal Christianity in my teen years following a rocky childhood…

I pursued a calling in full time ministry for 9 years after going to Bible college for 4 years and being credentialed with the Assemblies of God. I was later ordained as well. Recently, due to some relatively minor occurrences, a floodgate of doubts has opened up to me in my faith. I had come across a couple of books that peaked my interest, such as Dawkins book “The God Delusion”. I am currently working my way through it. I’ve always contended what good is your faith if it can’t stand up to scrutiny? Well, mine isn’t standing up very well. It is not the outside sources warring on me (such as Dawkins book, or the anti-christian bias of our culture), as much as my own struggle with my beliefs and being honest to myself. I find I am tortured going to church now.

I’ll be honest. I’m scared. No, petrified. I feel like I’ve murdered someone and am trying to keep it a secret. My wife literally has no idea, and would / will come unglued when I finally bring the subject up. I’m scared of the response of my wife/kids/family, but also of the prospect of life without God. Yet I feel a strange sense of exhilaration as well, like a great burden may be soon lifted off my shoulders. This is what I experienced when I left the ministry.

As I said, I can’t even believe I’m writing you this email. I’ve read through much of your blog. Yet there are a couple of questions that I didn’t see addressed (perhaps they are in your book) that I think would be great for the average “joe” like me, who is really struggling in their faith.

1) What do I do now? How do I weed through all of the questions / struggles / problems going on in my head? Where do I start? How do I tell my family? How do I explain (there is no one simple answer)?

2) What would you say to the “guy on the street”? What I mean is this. I consider myself to be of average or slightly above average intelligence, with a higher motivation than most for understanding things (I enjoyed school). But what about the average guy that needs it boiled down in USA today fashion? Is there hope for this person, or do we merely leave them to struggle along with their faith? I REALLY appreciate your approach (not angry, bitter, condescending), like many other people who are anti-Christian.

I purchased your book today (linked through your site so you should get some commission), and I do intend to support the site. I know this gets a bit tricky, probably not wanting to take the Church approach of asking for donations, but I’m glad you have the option there. I still believe a workman is worth his wage. You are performing a great service, and I hope you are able to support yourself at some point through the service you provide. I am finding many of the stories and posts simply fascinating, and I’ve only scratched the surface. As I said, I’m very early in this journey, and not at all sure where it is going to take me. Either way, I’m glad you’ve made this site available. It is a Godsend (sorry, I just had to say that. I’ve a bit of a warped sense of humor).

I can’t imagine how difficult it must have been in terms of the personal attacks you’ve had to endure. I am going to continue down this road, and your book seems to be the most “human” approach to the subject I’ve seen so far.

Best wishes to you, and thanks again.

Here is my typical response: 1) I don't know you or your family to be able to give specific advice on what to do now. But I know I would tell your family and friends when the time was right. I would break it to them slowly by asking questions or by telling them you are investigating into the new atheists and show them the books you're reading. After all, if your faith is true then it should withstand the arguments to the contrary. And I would ask them the questions that these books are asking whenever I could. [Actually for anyone who is secretly reading this Blog and/or these books I would tell my Christian friends up front about this, just in the slim case that you might actually lose your faith. I would inform people from the very beginning so they would not be that shocked if you do deconvert.]

2) To the "guy on the street" I’d say that Christianity doesn't make sense. That opens up the discussion. If they say you're not supposed to make sense of it but just believe, I say that advice doesn't make sense. ;-) Then I would tell them that if God exists he created us with our minds and if that's so we should use them. If God is a reasonable God then the truth should comport to reason. In fact, we are asked to love God with all of our minds (the greatest commandment). So if it doesn't make sense then there is a real problem for faith. I cannot do othewise but to use my mind. Such a faith should stand up to reason so by saying it's "not supposed to make sense" makes no sense. I cannot think otherwise.

Here are some similar links:

Some advice to those who leave Christianity.

Should I come out of the closet?.

I no longer believe: What do I tell my kids?.

Ed Owens' story.

Help me Convince my Brother, John!

Here's a link to a young man who feared the worse in telling his parent he no longer believed and found it to be just fine. They still love him--imagine that!

Want To Stick It To JP Holding?

I usually ignore JP Holding and I think others should too, as much as possible. He reminds me of a little boy who throws tantrums because he isn't the center of attention. My review of his book The Impossible Faith is on Amazon. If you read it you'll see that my review has gotten the most positive votes, thanks! This bothers him. Just look through the comments and see what kind of person he really is! If you think it's a good review I would appreciate your positive vote. Then it will be there on the front page of his book forever. ;-)

Dr. W. L. Craig Caught Telling More Untruths: A Case Study in Theistic Apologetics

Character Assassination by Theistic Apologists in the YouTube Era.

Theists repeatedly characterize atheists as having little or no regard for the truth. But over on YouTube a blogger using the moniker, “Drcraigvideos,” has posted a gem of a study in the theistic ethics of truth-telling---see
Craig Attack video

It is hard to count the number of untruths in this video, but the story gets even stranger when I confronted the website about these untruths. Since the website would not post my comments there, I decided to bring their unscrupulous tactics to light here. It is a study in how self-described professional evangelical apologists, such as Dr. Craig, use character assassination with little regard for basic fact-checking or fairness.

Evangelicals, Your Days Are Numbered

In the comments of this post Chuck O’Conner tells us that his Pastor thinks Christianity may be one generation from extinction. What d’ya think?

Well extinction is probably an impossibility. There are always pockets of Christianities left behind who still exist in the backwoods. His pastor probably meant American evangelical Christianity, since it is growing by leaps and bounds in parts of Asia and in the Southern Hemisphere. So the question is whether evangelical Christianity will be relegated to the backwoods in one generation in America. Who knows, right? I think I agree with him, if that's what he meant. Yes it will. You have one generation evangelicals--40 years at best here in America. I won't be alive to see it, but I do predict it.

Here is what Chuck wrote:

John,

Great post. I had lunch with a friend of mine yesterday. He happens to be a young pastor, graduate from Trinity and is planting a church in Minnesota. He preached on Acts 17 and how Christianity may be 1 generation from extinction. His premise was that the Gospel is irrelevant to younger Americans for three reasons 1) Personal experience of abuse within Church 2) Intellectualism and inability to understand the mysteries of faith (e.g. The Trinity, Jesus as fully human and fully divine) 3) Cultural alienation (e.g. An Indian resident who has no context for monotheism). I suggested a fourth area where the Gospel is being questioned and that is around the desire for truth-seeking people to pursue a path with not as many obvious internal self-contradictions. As I take a skeptical look at the superiority claims of Christianity centered on sciptural inerrency claims I am coming to see the bible as a product of men trying to understand their cirucmstances via myth. Therefore the whole foundation of a Christian God starts crumbling for me. Your post hightlights the inability for scripture to be an absolute guide towards optimal morality because it perfectly supports the institution of slavery.

My friend agreed and said he wishes the bible said exactly what you have said, "It is absolutely wrong to own another human being." He still holds their is a lesson to be learned by considering these aspects of the bible as part of a larger narrative. I see them as self-contradictory and therefore am coming to the conclusion that Christianity and the bible are elements of our culture but are not superior to other elements.

Thanks for the thoughts. Good stuff.

What Did the Southern States Do That Isn't Found Here?

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

You can buy slaves from foreign nations! They will become your property! You can will them to your children! You can make them slaves for life!

Is the Christian God loving and compassionate?

First an apology. I accidentally deleted my previous post "A Simple Question"--along with all the comments--in the process of editing this one. Sorry! I'll do what I can to retrieve it.

The following argument is valid.

1. No one whose rational faculties are functioning perfectly can make an irrational decision.(premise)
2. Rejecting God is an irrational decision. [assumed for the sake of argument]
3. Therefore, the rational faculties of nonbelievers are not functioning perfectly. (from 2, 1)
4. Therefore, their rational faculties are defective in a way that prevents them from making a rational decision with respect to accepting God. (from 3)
5. If the Christian God were loving and compassionate, then he would want to correct this defect in all nonbelievers (premise)
6. The Christian God does not want to correct this defect in all nonbelievers.(premise)
7. Therefore, the Christian God is not loving and compassionate. (from 7, 6)

A delicate situation

For several years my wife has been occasionally attending a local “home church,” usually about once a month. A couple of families take turns hosting the once-a-week meetings in their home, the father of the host home directing the activities with the large families in attendance: Bible study, Bible memorization, singing, and prayer, all of which is followed by a hearty meal. I normally join the group for the meal on days when my wife and children attend. I get along fairly well with the leaders of this home church, even though their worldview is diametrically opposed to mine. We have had some spirited discussions over the years, but we’re all normally quite friendly and congenial to each other.

Disclaimer: I am not a first-hand participant in the story I’m about to tell; I have heard only one perspective, so I cannot claim complete objectivity, but I present the story as accurately as I’m able.

A member of this home church, a single mother (I’ll call her Jane) who was abandoned by her husband about eight years ago, recently started dating another man (I’ll call him John) whose wife had left him and their three children a few years ago. Both John and Jane are fundamentalist believers. I met John at a recent home church dinner, and he seems very personable and successful in his career. In observing them together, I am happy for them: they’re obviously in love, talking about marriage. She has worked so hard as a single mother, baby-sitting and cleaning houses, to provide for her children for so many years, but if they marry, she will no longer bear this intense burden. In turn, John will have someone to help care for his children.

Enter the home church leadership. Their understanding of Jesus’ teachings does not permit them to bless this relationship or the marriage into which John and Jane seem to be headed. They feel that John should make a greater effort to be reconciled with his former wife, even though she was the one who initiated the divorce. Otherwise, if he remarries, he will be living in sin. Not only is the home church leadership not prepared to bless the relationship; they have gone so far as to confront Jane, a longstanding member of the home church, and when she declined to call off the relationship, the leadership excommunicated her.

Of course Jane is devastated by all this: in the midst of one of the most joyous periods of her life, she is sternly confronted and excommunicated by some of her closest friends. John will not speak to the home church leaders, knowing how they have treated Jane. It appears the relationship will go forward, but their joy has been doused by the moral zeal of Jane’s home church.

Now my wife is wondering how to relate to the home church. She feels for Jane and doesn’t understand the actions taken against her, but she wishes if possible to retain her ties with the home church. In discussing the situation with my wife, I expressed my dismay at what the leadership had done, but I did not advise her one way or the other—I felt it was up to her to decide whether to continue her occasional attendance at the home church. So far no decision has been made, and since her attendance was only occasional, perhaps no stir will be caused if she quietly stops attending the church.

Perhaps I have taken the easy way out by washing my hands of the situation. I’m glad Jane will no longer be part of the home church and that she will be free to marry John. I just wish it hadn’t happened, and part of me wants to confront the home church leadership to show how ugly their faith has become. Then again, none of my prior conversations with them about the age of the earth or the reliability of the Bible had any apparent effect, so I’m doubtful they would be any more swayed by a moral confrontation from an infidel like me.

This is truly a lamentable situation. It shows how human compassion can be made to take a back seat to the “righteousness” of one’s firm religious views.

Paul Tobin's Book: The Best Skeptical Book on the Bible as a Whole

Paul Tobin’s new book, The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible and the Historical Jesus has arrived and I am very glad it did. It is the best skeptical work on the Bible as a whole. Gerd Lüdemann, author of several skeptical works on early Christianity, recommends it “with the utmost enthusiasm.” I do too.

Tobin’s whole argument is aimed to show that Pascal’s famous wager has no effect on us because we are not forced to choose between Pascal’s Catholic brand of Christianity and unbelief. Why? Because the central claims of Christianity are false. He takes aim at the Bible to show that while it may be a great work of literature it is not the word of God. And Tobin backs his claim up with his massive 652 page book, complete with a nice bibliography and indexes.

If you’re a former Christian who has deconverted at a later time in life then you need to re-learn most all of what you were taught about the Bible. If you were college and seminary trained like me, this can be a difficult thing to do. So, you could go on a massive reading binge, spending many hours and a lot of money feasting on book after book. Or, you could read this one. Given that choice I highly recommend you get this one. Tobin masterfully takes us through the Bible using critical scholarship to show us what we can and cannot know about it. It has helped me remember several things I learned back in college and seminary but had forgotten. It taught me some very interesting things I hadn’t yet thought through as a skeptic, and I think I’ve read a great deal on the subject since my deconversion. Tobin showed me I hadn’t read enough.

It’s all here for the most part in an encyclopedic fashion, covering the ancient myths, the errors, the lack of confirming archaeology, the failed prophecies, and the forged authorship. He also covers the ad hoc canonization process and the textual transmission of these texts. Tobin is a very good guide to these topics, using the results of critical scholars whom he refers to time and again.

He writes and thinks well too. Take for instance Noah’s Ark. Tobin tells us simply that on the one hand “it is too big,” in that the structure could not be seaworthy. On the other hand “it was too small,” with not enough room for all of the animals it would have had in it. (pp. 75-77).

Tobin also spends a few pages effectively dealing with the minutia of numerical “contradictions” in the Bible, like the value of π (pi) found in Kings 7:23-26 (pp. 29-38). He even shows how that the evangelical New International Version has purposely mistranslated several passages to eliminate the appearance of difficulties inherent in the original languages (pp. 197-204).

And he addresses how the liberals view the Bible by concluding that they “did not reach their conclusions by abstruse theological reasoning: they were forced by external circumstances—the findings of science, comparative religions, enlightenment philosophies and historical criticism.” (pp. 187-196).

If you want to know why scholars think the Gospel of Mark was written first you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why scholars don’t think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of their gospels, and why they are written later than evangelicals claim, you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why the Nativity stories are fictions you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why scholars have serious doubts about what Jesus may have said, or why they doubt the Passion Narratives and resurrection stories, you may only need to read this book.

If you have only one skeptical book about the Bible as a whole this one is all you need. And even if you have some other books, this one will still inform you of issues you probably haven’t read up on, like it did with me.

Tobin did a massive amount of work here. I will use it as a reference when dealing with some of these topics in the future. It’s worth the price. I liked it so much I asked Tobin to write a chapter for a book I’ve been editing/writing.

Why does God give up on nonbelievers?

If rejecting God is a grave mistake, then why would God not wish to help nonbelievers see the error of their decision? Why would he let them perish in hell for all eternity (or simply perish) without any hope of redemption? The reason, Christians tell us, is one of respect: God respects the decision to reject him, and therefore will not devalue this “free choice”—however irrational—by interfering. Below, I show why this answer is problematic.

First, the answer assumes that the “free” decision to reject God is worthy of respect, since without this assumption, it is impossible to explain why God would respect it. It makes no sense to say God will respect decisions unworthy of respect. So what is it about the decision to reject God that is worthy of respect? I see only two possibilities: the decision is either (1) intrinsically respectable or (2) worthy of respect because it is made by a free being who is itself worthy of respect. No will argue the first possibility. As for the second, the Christian needs to demonstrate the connection between a free agent being worthy of respect and the (irrational) choices she makes being worthy of respect. What is this connection? If I see my friend ready to jump into a volcano, should I “respect” his choice, or attempt to prevent him from making a grave error? The latter, clearly. Thus, I can respect my friend’s worth without having to respect his irrational choices. As the example illustrates, I can even respect my friend’s worth while interfering with his free will.

Christians will undoubtedly argue that God cannot interfere with the nonbeliever’s free will, despite how she chooses to exercise it. For if God were to not accept the nonbeliever’s irrational choice, he would be devaluing her humanity or intrinsic moral worth. I’d like to see some justification for this claim, but even supposing the Christian could provide a satisfactory answer, there lies a deeper problem: why would God wish to give up on the nonbeliever? According to Christians, the decision to reject God is indicative of a deep defect in the nonbeliever’s moral and rational faculties. So it is utterly incomprehensible why God would wish to give up on trying to correct this defect. If God thinks the nonbeliever is making the biggest mistake one can possibly make, then it is far more plausible to suppose he would do everything in his power to help her realize her error—reach out to her until she ‘gets it’, no matter how long it takes. Hence, the obvious answer to the question of when God should give up is ‘never.’ It is what a fully compassionate and loving being would do, and therefore what God would do, if he exists.

Is the nonbeliever at fault for rejecting God?

No, she is not at fault. Consider the following:

1. If one is adequately informed of the consequences of a decision, and willfully choosing to make that decision is clearly irrational, then it is irrational to willfully choose to make it.
2. If one willfully chooses to make an irrational decision, then one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective.
3. If one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective, then this defect was either the result of (a) choices that the agent herself made in the past or (b) external causes.
4. If one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective due to external causes, then it cannot be one's fault that one's reasoning faculties are defective.
5. If one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective due to choices that the agent herself has made in the past, then it cannot be one's fault that her reasoning faculties are defective.
6. If it cannot be one's fault that one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective, then it cannot be one's fault for willfully making an irrational decision.
7. Nonbelievers are adequately informed of the consequences of rejecting God, and willfully choosing to make that decision is clearly irrational. [assumed only for the sake of argument]
------------------------
8. Therefore, nonbelievers who willfully choose to reject God are irrational in choosing to make this decision. (from 6, 1)
9. Therefore, those nonbelievers' moral or reasoning faculties are defective. (from 7, 2)
10. Therefore, it cannot be the nonbelievers' fault that their moral or reasoning faculties are defective. (from 8, 5, 4, and 3)
11. Therefore, it cannot be the nonbelievers' fault for willfully choosing to reject God. (from 10, 8, and 6)

Some would question (5). Some, I suspect, are inclined to think that if one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective due to choices that the agent herself has made in the past, then it can be her fault that her moral or reasoning faculties are defective. Not so: we first have to inquire why the agent made the choices she did. Were they rational choices or irrational choices? Was she aware of the fact that her past choices would result in her moral or reasoning faculties becoming defective? If she was aware of this consequence, then her past choices could not have been rational -- hence they were irrational. But if willfully choosing to make those choices was irrational, then her moral or reasoning faculties were already defective.

At some point, after we have inquired into why the agent made the choices she did, we arrive at an external explanation. We thus arrive at conclusion (4): that if one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective due to external causes, then it cannot be one's fault that one's reasoning faculties are defective.

Philip Davies on The End of Biblical Studies

Does Prof. Davies love the Bible more than Prof. Avalos?

Philip Davies, a professor emeritus at the University of Sheffield in England, is one of my heroes. He has been a long-time critic of biblical scholars who claim that there is more history in the Bible than there is.

His work is one of the inspirations for my book, The End of Biblical Studies (EOBS), which argues that the field of biblical studies is still permeated by religionist biases.

But, although Davies may agree with me on some major issues, he says he disagrees with me on the notion of ending biblical studies. He has expressed his opinion in his review of my book in The Journal of Theological Studies 60:1 (2009):214-219. He has also posted a related item at The Bible and Interpretation blogsite--- Philip Davies’ post.

The Influence of The Canaanite Religion on The Theology of Jesus And The New Testament

It has long been known by ancient Near Eastern scholars who concentrate in the Hebrew Bible that early oral traditions were used as major references in shaping the Patriarchal narratives, particularly in the Jacob Cycles (such as noted by Julius Wellhausen (1844 - 1918), Herman Gunkel (1862 - 1932), Martin Noth (1902 -1968)) and thus formed the bases for Israel’s narrative traditions.

In 1928, an Arab peasant plowing the land near a mound struck a slab of stone. Upon raising the stone, he found traces of an ancient tomb with potsherds and small undamaged vessels. The antiquities service in Syria was informed who, in turn notified the French archeologist Mons. Ch. Virolleaud.

The stone that the peasant had hit turned out to be just an ancient necropolis with little promise. However, the archaeologist in the team next turned their attention to an artificial near by mound (named by locals as Ras-ashShamrah), which, when explored, proved to be the site of the ancient city know in texts from Babylonian, Hittite and Egyptian as the city of Ugarit.

Excavation carried out by the French archaeologist Mons. C.F.A. Schaeffer between 1929 and 1939 and then continued after WWII, have unearth thousands of clay tablets around the main library attached to the temple of Baal. The tablets are dated between 1400 and 1350 BCE and are extremely varied in their contents.

The script of the tablets are written in Akkadian, Hurrian and Sumerian, but the native language of the city is a script using the cuneiform symbols based on an alphabetic constant signs now classified in the group of Northwest Semitic languages which predates Hebrew. This language, now know as Ugaritic, is the parent language of the Israelites who are said to have spoken Hebrew.

Because the name of one of the gods in the text was called “Baal” and of whose temple the library it was next to, the city has now been identified with the Canaanites with whom the Israelites are said to have taken the land from to form Israel.

Modern scholars of the Hebrew Bible such as Richard Clifford, Frank M. Cross, Nicholas Wyatt, Mark Smith, John Day, William Dever, J.C. de Moor the late Marvin Pope, C.H Gordon and M. Dahood see a direct connection or continuation of Canaanite stories in the older cycles of the Israelite.

An example here is Psalm 29 which is traditionally assigned to King David, but is basically a reworked Canaanite hymn from Ugarit.

So, did this connection and continuation of Canaanite material end in with the Hebrew Bible or is this tradition (which was once held in high regards by the early Israelites) still able to shape the New Testament? I think so and I list the following:

A. Jesus never calls the deity of his Jewish nation by his personal proper name Yahweh, but simply Theos = El ("El" is Hebrew for god) . El is the same name of the supreme god of the Canaanites at Ugarit.

B. Jesus calls El “Abba” or father: (“And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." Mark 14: 36). Jesus tells his disciples to call El also “father” in the Lord’s Prayer. Baal calls his god “ab” or father too. Both divine fathers of Jesus and Baal (El, the supreme god of the Jews and the Canaanites) are fatherly figure gods who live in Heaven.

C. Jesus is called “Lord” many times by his followers in the Gospels and Jesus is identified with God in the Gospels. Likewise, God is Jesus’ heavenly father.

In the Ugaritic texts, the term b’l=baal can simply mean “Lord” or elsewhere it can be used as a proper name “Baal” where he is the title of the chief god of the Canaanites who is the son of the supreme god El.

D. Jesus descends and returns from the neither world (Hell) (For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt. 12:40 and “By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; I Peter 3:19) so too does Baal descend and return from the underworld.

E. Jesus stills a storm on the Sea of Galilee, so too does Baal control the wind and weather.

F. Jesus intervenes between his followers and God his father. So too does Baal intervene between the people of Ugarit and El his father.

G. Jesus is depicted as King seated on a throne ruling his kingdom and giving righteous judgments. So too is Baal seated on his throne ruling a kingdom with righteous judgments.

H. In the Book of Revelation, Jesus fights and kills the evil serpent / dragon. So too does Baal fight and kill the twisted serpent Ugaritic “ltn btn brh” (Litanu, the serpent or Leviathan).

I. Biblical numbers such as 3, 6, 7 and 40 are used many times in the New Testament are used equally in the Ugaritic text to give divine meaning to these Canaanite texts.

Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?

[Written by John W Loftus] It all started recently with Richard Dawkins and his charge that the God of the Old Testament is the most unpleasant fictional character he'd ever seen. So Paul Copan, President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, wrote an article defending Yahweh's ways. Here are links to the further discussion so far. How does Copan's position fare now? This is Copan's original article: Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?: The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics. Hector Avalos wrote a devastating response to Copan: Paul Copan’s Moral Relativism: A Response from a Biblical Scholar of the New Atheism. Here is professing Christian Wes Morriston's devastating response to Copan's inerrantism: Did God Command Genocide? A Challenge to the Biblical Inerrantist. Undismayed, Copan wrote a rejoinder here: Yahweh Wars and the Canaanites: Divinely-Mandated Genocide or Corporate Capital Punishment? Anyone see Copan's Cognitive Dissonance Reduction like I do? FYI: Paul Copan knew of Avalos's response before he wrote this last article. I had emailed him about it. But he chose not to respond to it. I wonder why? HT on the Morriston paper to exapologist.

The Story of Suzie

I Highly Recommend the New Book, Doubting the Resurrection

It is rare that I recommend a new book twice to my readers, but the recommendations for Kris D. Komarnitsky's book keep coming in: Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box? In it he lays out a probable naturalistic hypothesis of Christian origins. Here's what some scholars are saying about his book:

“If you liked my book Beyond Born Again, you're going to love this one by Kris Komarnitsky! He shows great acuity of judgment and clear-eyed perception of the issues. He does not claim to have proof of what happened at Christian origins, but he does present a powerfully plausible hypothesis for what might have happened, which is all you need to refute the fundamentalist’s claim that things can only have gone down their way. By now it is a mantra – it is also nonsense, and Kris shows that for a fact.”

–– Robert M. Price, Ph.D. Theology, Ph.D. New Testament

“A surprisingly excellent demonstration of how belief in the resurrection of Jesus could plausibly have originated by natural means. Komarnitsky is well read in the leading scholarship on this issue and boils the debate down to bare essentials in plain language. He quotes and cites dozens of scholars and primary sources to build a solid case. Though I don't always agree with him, and some issues could be discussed at greater length, everything he argues is plausible, and his treatise as a whole is a must for anyone interested in the resurrection.”

–– Richard Carrier, Ph.D. Ancient History

“Komarnitsky is addressing an important topic in a considered and rational way. This book offers the open-minded reader an opportunity to work through some of the key questions surrounding the Easter mystery that lies at the heart of Christian faith.”

–– Gregory C. Jenks, Ph.D. FaithFutures Foundation

“Clearly written and well argued, Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection lays out a plausible and intriguing case for a non-supernatural explanation of the New Testament resurrection accounts. Don’t be put off by the fact that Komarnitsky is not a scholar – his book makes a solid contribution to the historical-critical understanding of these immensely important texts. This book deserves serious attention from scholars and all those interested in Christian Origins.”

–– Robert J. Miller, Professor of Religious Studies, Juniata College.

"In Komarnitsky's third chapter he ventures onto my home turf--psychology--and his treatment of the the subject is impressive. I found the chapter opening a bit hard to follow, but persistence paid off in spades.

Komarnitsky pulls together the work of historians and psychologists and tells story after story of apocalyptic cults that find ways to sustain their beliefs despite radical disappointments (a messianic figure betrays trust, an end-of-the-world date comes and goes, aliens fail to appear). Social psychologist Leon Festinger's work on cognitive dissonance provides a theoretical framework for understanding an otherwise incomprehensible phenomenon. For anyone who is interested in how apocalyptic beliefs are sustained, whether in a Christian context or not, I recommend this thorough, well-documented overview.

Although the Christian resurrection story is shrouded in mythos, making it hard to know what actually happened in history, modern examples and cognitive dissonance theory offer a compelling possible scenario. Without resorting to any form of supernaturalism, drawing just on what we know about human behavior, Komarnitsky offers a sufficient explanation for the resurrection story at the heart of Christian orthodoxy."

-- Valerie Tarico, Ph.D., Author: The Dark Side - How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth

Science and Religion: A Truce

I, Science, have heard your plea for a truce, oh religion, My nemesis of ages past.

You are wounded, oh religion.
The still-warm blood runs down your side as you say it did your savior on the cross.
My Soldiers in white coats have maimed you.
They have crippled you, leaving you to limp away a casualty from the battlefield.

And now, on the loser’s end, with My chipped and crimson sword laid at your throat, you plead for mercy.
You beg Me to spare your life.
You ask for compassion and for understanding from Me, Science.
You want to be held up and accepted.

Know that I, Science, have no obligation to hear you.
Better it is that you should die, as all things old and decrepit.
But out of compassion and mercy, I grant you what you seek.

I let you alone.
I let you go your way.
I spare you.
But like a fool, you press your luck and demand more.

Instead of running away with your tale between your legs, with a morsel of thankfulness, and what little dignity you have left intact, you debase yourself.
You whine and complain.
You want your doctrines to be accepted in the universities and Institutions of Science and higher learning as viable theories, if not Scientific Truths.

You ask, “Why does science have to be so hostile to religion?”
“Why does the Scientific Community mock us so?”
“Why can't we as religious believers get the respect that we seek?”
“Why can't science and religion join hands?”

And I, Science, reply to you that We are hostile to you because you claim to be of Our Number, but are not.
Your representatives – the creationists and apologists of the ID movement – claim allegiance to Science when your claim is invalid and a manipulation for your own advantage.

You are imposters, all of you, liars and imposters with an agenda.
You serve yourselves and your own interests, and not those of Science.
You seek to exalt your savior and your faith.
You don't seek Truth.

So this I say to you – the religious intelligencia who actively seek an alliance with, Me, Science – take the liberties I give you. Bask in the sun of the life conveniences and the comforts I have granted to you, to worship, to sing, to pray, and to affirm or to deny any belief you want; teach and expound; reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine; imagine and create, appoint and oversee; stand outside and admire the stars and the host of heaven as you believe your god provided them for you to admire.

Let the raindrops bounce off of your tongue; admire to no end; teach on love, seek peace, and promote change as you see fit. Do all these things and My covenant of peace shall abide with you, and a very small number of My White-coated Representatives of Science shall at times join you as you worship.

But should you cross into My Territory, into the Territory that belongs to Science, should you bring your antiquated holy books into My Realms of microscopes and peer-reviewed journals, should you take select quotes from real Scientists to bolster your own beliefs and the claims of your false scientists, I will attack you and will kill you in open debate.
You can never stand up to Me, oh religion.
I am your Successor.
I am your Better.

Should the outstretched arms and bleeding hands of your savior embolden you to embrace Our Naturalistic Approach and begin to choke our Scientific Method, should the representatives of your splintered, pious movements begin to interfere and impersonate Our Scientists, to subvert our Work and to make it your own work, a great trespass is committed, and I will remember no more the covenant I made with you.

Nay, I, Science, shall strike you down, and your academics shall be cast out of the universities.
All My Scholars shall hiss at you, and you will be a mockery and an abhorrence to all of the Enlightened everywhere.
You shall grope in the darkness.
Only the simpleton and the ignoramus and the child shall hear you.
The dumb and the fool and the unlearned shall be they who give ear to your words.

And I, Science, shall surely slay you in the courts of the lands.
Cursed shall you be in the schools and cursed shall you be in the colleges.
Cursed shall you be in the laboratories and cursed shall you be in all of the institutions of higher learning.

I, Science, have spoken.

(JH)

What Is The Difference Between A Perception And Knowledge?

Or, "What is the difference between private personal experience and knowledge?". I know this may sound like a stupid question to some, but it seems that it is pivotal in the "Disregarding Established Knowledge..." discussion. In my view, considering inaccessible personal experience to be of the same value as established knowledge is untenable.

Disregarding Established Knowledge Is Bad, UnKay?

Its simple,
If your beliefs are not consitent with established human knowledge, then they probably are not justified. In that case, other people are not justified in believing what you say about them, and furthermore you have no reason to expect anyone to believe you.