Because of Who?

What with pedophile priests, a truly frightening trailer for a film called JESUS CAMP, comparisons of modern political absurdities with Nazi Germany, and various other religious/political rants firing up atheist/freethought bloggers everywhere I was reminded of something the bible has exactly right:

As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

Because of who?

Turn with me, if you will, to Romans chapter 2 verse 17 (this is the NIV version.) "Now you, if you call yourself a Jew (insert your choice in place of Jew; Christian, apologist, preacher, pastor, televangelist, churchgoer, etc.); if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth --- you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? (Does any of this sound familiar?) You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.""

On more than one occasion I used this to get people to toe the line and I've forgotten how many times I heard it preached to bring on some heavy duty guilt. What believer would want to be the cause of god's name being blasphemed? Bad behavior? You're being watched. Look at how horrible the consequences might be.

And don't tell me that it isn't legit to substitute for Jews. This is common practice in Sunday school and sermons all the time. Have to make it relevant. That's in the bible, too, 1 Corinthians 9 verse 9: "For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that god is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us ..." (Keep reading for some fund raising guilt.) All these things are supposed to be written to us so we can learn.

One of the most obvious and pathetic cases of this was the fall of Jimmy Swaggert several years ago. Just weeks before his meeting with prostitutes, I heard him preach (while crying his heart out, naturally) against the evil sinfulness of good Christian women wearing shorts above the knee in public. What a horrible sin. But who caused god's name to be blasphemed?

The standard escape clause for all this is the little phrase: "We're only human." If you decide you're going to speak for god, you put yourself into a position of extreme pressure. Any inappropriate behavior on your part has dire consequences. All the name calling and slander that comes up while defending your beliefs does not reflect favorably on your god.

I would be more than a little pissed off if my name was blasphemed because of you.

Salvation and Damnation: A Panoply of Moral Dilemmas by Ken Nahigian

How does one obtain “salvation” and avoid eternal hell? The Bible supplies more than one answer, yet each answer raises its own moral dilemma as we shall see after first reviewing the obligatory Bible verses below. (We will also be examining a variety of Christian responses from the "freewill defense" all the way to "Calvinism.")

ARE WE SAVED BY BELIEF ALONE?

“Whosoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)

“... whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (John 3:18)

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36)

“He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life.” (John 5:24)

Jesus answered and said to them, “The only work God requires is to believe in the one he sent.” (John 6:29)

[The jailer] “brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:30-31)

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

“... by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight.” (Romans 3:20)

“We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.” (Romans 3:28)

“If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9-10)

“So that the law has become our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” (Galatians 3:24-25)


OR ARE WE SAVED BY WORKS ALONE?

Take for instance the deed or act of forgiving others. According to the Gospel of Matthew it assures us God's forgiveness for ourselves: "Forgive us our trespasses [Father God], as we forgive those who tresspass against us... For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." (Matthew 6:12,14)

[Jesus said] “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:17-22)

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets... Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and DOETH them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock."(Matthew 7:12,16-24)

The "sheep and the goats" are separated on the day of final judgment and the goats get eternally punished while the sheep are granted eternal life, based on their works/actions/deeds: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." Matthew 25:31-46

“And behold, one came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” And He said to him, “...if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 19:16-19)

An official asked him this question, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answered him, “... You know the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother.’” And he replied, “All of these I have observed from my youth.” When Jesus heard this he said to him, “There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven.” (Luke 18:18-22)

“God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.” (Romans 2:6-7)

“...you, O Lord, are loving. Surely you will reward each person according to what he has done.” (Psalm 62:12)


OR ARE WE SAVED BY BELIEF AND WORKS (WITH THE EMPHASIS BEING ON WORKS, SINCE BELIEF OFTEN COMES WAY TOO EASY, AND EVEN DEVILS BELEVE)?

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:14-24)


DISCUSSION OF THE ABOVE MEANS OF SALVATION AND THE MORAL DILEMMAS THEY PROVOKE

If salvation were important you would think that the Bible would speak about it with greater clarity and consistently. But lurking behind the question such apparently conflicting verses raise are other problems, deeper ones, for each alterative brings with it its own moral dilemma.

If faith/belief alone is sufficient, mass murderers like Oliver Cromwell, Torquemada or Hitler (all Christian believers) are in heaven, while compassionate non-Christians such as Anne Frank, Ghandi or Albert Einstein burn in hell. This hardly seems merciful or just.

On the other hand, if good deeds or works alone are sufficient, the practical distinction between ethical humanism and Christianity turns to vapor. Christian doctrine might well be true, but no more essential to salvation than chemistry or the binomial theorem. Instead of teaching about Jesus, Christian missionaries should try to convince people simply to be decent human beings, to love and care for each other. How many souls have they lost over the last two thousand years while pushing the wrong message? (Why do they still push it?)

If salvation requires both correct faith and good works, then Hitler and Torquemada may well be damned, but we still face the moral madness of basically good people burning in hell--Thomas Jefferson, Anne Frank, Mark Twain, Robert Frost, Albert Einstein, Luther Burbank or Buckminster Fuller, none of whom were orthodox Christian believers, as well as billions of others who were so unlucky as to be born into non-Christian cultures, down to the smallest, sweetest child. Forever. (And that means a lot of people, since the Bible seems to imply only a fraction of humankind will escape hell. See: Matt 7:13-14, Matt 22:14, Luke 13:23-24.)

Can such questions be resolved successfully and all such difficulties made to vanish? One attempt to do so involves linking faith with good works, as if sincere faith and moral behavior necessarily reflect each other. The argument, subtle and not unclever, goes something like this:

Correct & sincere faith inspires good works; good works indicate sincere & correct faith. A true believer naturally does good in order to honor and respect God. Any who claim to believe but who do evil are not truly committed in their hearts, or their faith is flawed. Moral midgets like Hitler and Torquemada did not really have faith, despite what they may have told themselves. Outstanding moral giants such as Spinoza, Anne Frank, Albert Einstein and Christopher Reeve did indeed have faith on a subconscious level, even if they were unaware. The same for innocent children and the righteous pagans. They were “Christian in their hearts.” They simply did not know it.

Clever as this is, it conflicts with what we see. In general, crime and immorality are not less in regions of deep religious belief, indeed are often higher. The American “Bible Belt” states, and religious nations such as Mexico or Brazil, have exceptionally high rates of violent crime, far higher than secular regions such as Japan or the Netherlands. This is a worldwide pattern. Among prison inmates in the United States, the measured incidence of atheism is about 1%, but in free society about 7% - 11%, suggesting religious skeptics are less likely to commit serious crimes. The sins and moral gaffes of evangelical leaders here are almost legendary. Even Billy Graham, supposedly the best of the lot, wrote a letter to Richard Nixon in 1969, demanding the bombing of farm dikes in North Vietnam – something that would have devastated the economy, constituted a war crime under international law, and killed over one million people.

As the great Christian writer C. S. Lewis wrote in a letter to a friend, “... we must fully face the fact that when Christianity does not make a man very much better, it makes him very much worse... no worse than an animal, something like a devil.”

In any case, it is difficult to swallow the claim that someone can be a religious believer without being aware of it.

The next popular rationalization comes in four flavors at least. The common thread is that God sets different conditions for different groups.

#1 God judges the ancient Jews and pagans (those who never heard of Jesus) by good works, the rest of us by faith. Innocents (those who died before they were old enough to make a decent decision) get a free ticket into heaven.
#2 God “looks into the hearts” of pagans and innocents, judging them by a general unspoken spiritual potential, an unconscious acceptance of God-seen-in-nature.
#3 God gives pagans and innocents a second chance. Immediately after death He reveals himself, then they may decide to accept or reject Him.
#4 It’s a mystery. God has a Secret Plan for the salvation of pagans and innocents. It is not our business to know.

These take the edge off the original dilemma, but open another can of worms: double standards. In #1 & #2, pagans clearly get the better deal, since to be saved they need only be good in a normal, everyday, human sense, or at least have a decent benevolent attitude, something most of us are inclined to anyway. Dying innocents get the best deal of all, an almost automatic ticket into heaven. It is enough to make you envious of crib-death babies; or wonder if abortion is really such a bad thing.

Likewise concerning #3 above; for in that case we struggle in a world of obscurity and doubt, stumbling in the dark, half-guessing, guided only by flawed human teachers and muddy texts two thousand years old with a hundred faiths shouting contrary interpretations in our ears. Meanwhile the pagan will get to meet God face-to-face before having to make his decision.

Such replies also make God into a “respecter of persons” (contrary to Acts 10:34-35), and to some extent salvation becomes a gamble, a matter of drawing the right straw, being born in the right time and place, or dying under just the right circumstances. Even worse, they subvert the motive for missionary work. Telling a pagan about Jesus erases the saving value of all his good works, or removes the “second chance” he is due for after death, putting him at immediate, profound risk of everlasting pain. So why tell?

Reply #4 is the most honest, and rather refreshing in its way. Yet Christians have mocked secularists for having no ready answer to highly technical questions about things like the evolution of bacterial flagellums. Now here we find a battleship-sized hole right in the heart of Christianity, a mystery concerning the salvation of 98% of all humanity--making Christianity a less certain worldview.

Beyond these, the arguments grow more surreal. One common stand is simply to shrug off the idea that God condemns people to hell. God condemns no one--rather, the damned damn themselves, they “choose” hell. Alas, this contradicts both the Bible and common sense. The Bible makes it clear that the torments of hell occur because God causes or ordains them in a very deliberate way. See Matt 7:13-14, Matt 13:41-42, Matt 25:41, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:47-48, Mark 16:16, Rev 20:10-15, Rev 21:8. Jesus “casts” souls into hell, commands them to “depart” into fire which was “prepared,” the smoke of the burning rises up “forever,” and so on and so on.

If you believe the Bible, damnation is a positive action of God, not something God is helpless to prevent. God is less like a fireman desperately running from house to house trying to put out fires-- more like an arsonist throwing lit matches into the basements.

The next common plea is that eternal hell is unfortunate but necessary. Why? Because God is a God of justice as well as mercy. We can’t have evil people in heaven. The reward of heaven would be meaningless without the alternative of hell’s punishment. Assuming “salvation by works,” such a plea might make some sense. Even then it seems strained.

As psychologists and criminologists know, punishment is effective only if it is swift, and if it is manifested in this life and commensurate with the crime. That is why a civilized society will guarantee a speedy and public trial (our 6th Amendment) and prohibit cruel/unusual punishment (8th Amendment). But what of infinite punishment for finite crime? What of punishments meted out in an invisible, secret place, known only by rumor--punishment occurring at the end of life or the end of all time, when all decisions are made and done, and lessons and regrets are useless? That is more like what we see in societies policed by secret, terrorist death squads. Such punishment must fail as a deterrent, and can habilitate no one. The only reason for it can be revenge. And that is unworthy of a just God.

(Ironically, the concept of "hell" has been used throughout Christian history mainly to frighten some Christians away from the "heretical" beliefs of other Christians, and thus it's been used mainly to try and promote uniformity of belief, which however never worked, since the "heretical" Christians simply used the same "hell-laden" language to dissuade their followers from joining the other sect in return. Some big examples include the mutual excommunication of two halves of Christendom at the time of the Catholic split with the Eastern Orthodox, and later at the time of the Protestant split with Catholicism, the latter of which was followed by The Thirty Years War. Even much later, Christian denominations in America--which sprouted up interminably in this new land--competed for souls hungrily with one denomination and their seminary blaming the rest for their "heresies." So for centuries "hell" did not prove much of an inspiration for people to avoid doing harm to one another in society in general, but provided plenty of reasons for Christians to distrust and fear each other's theological differences of opinion.)

Alternatives to the "eternal hell" view of course exist. It doesn't seem totally unreasonable to suppose that a truly loving and resourceful God might be able to find a way to save everyone. It might involve erasing some of the memories of wicked or recalcitrant souls, continual reeducation and repeated incarnations. Eventually, by law of averages, all souls would find salvation. It may take time, but God has infinite time, and infinite resources. So no problem.

At the very least, God could simply put unsaved souls to a peaceful rest, erase them, uncreate them or suspend their consciousness. After all, human doctors can repress consciousness, perception and sensation with the simple use of general anesthesia. Does it make sense to say humans can do something that God cannot?

Some sects and denominations do, in fact, believe in universal salvation or at least the peaceful annihilation of the unsaved. These are the Universalists and the Annihilationists. Some Evangelical Christians agree with one or the other of those two viewpoints. (*See note at end of article.)

One final, desperate argument declares the whole moral issue void. God made us, so God may do with us as He wishes, save or damn on a whim. God works under no moral strictures. Indeed, His will and His actions define morality. Whatever He does is right by definition. He is the Boss.

It’s a very Calvinist view. And it has a certain irony. It is like a loosing chess player sweeping all the pieces off the board. After Christians work so hard to convince us that God is loving, just and good, what a letdown to learn that loving, just and good simply mean “whatever God is.” Then saying “God is good” is as empty as saying “A = A.”

Maybe it is. In that case, God may also lie and break promises with moral impunity. It would be odd to claim that eternal torture of innocents is OK for God, but lying and promise-breaking are beyond the pale. So under the God-may-do-as-he-wishes logic, the Christian automatically looses all assurances, all guarantees--including guarantees of Biblical veracity, salvation and eternal life. Anything goes. All bets are off.

In fact, if morality for God is truly arbitrary and unrestrained, He could decide, on caprice, to send all Christians to hell and all atheists to heaven. It would be the last word in moral relativism. And the richest irony of all.

Are you sure you want to go there?

~~~~~~~~~~~

ENDNOTE
* There are Annihilationists among Evangelical Christians. For instance see the book, Four Views on Hell, part of the Counterpoints Series by the Evangelical publishing house, Zondervan Press, in which four Evangelicals debate their views of hell, one of them being Annihilationism. John Stott, author of the Intervarsity Press book, Basic Christianity, and member of the Evangelical Theological Society--is also an annihilationist. There are other annihilationist members of the ETS as well.

There are also Evangelical Christians who are Universalists. There were quite a few of them a hundred years ago who wrote popular books and preached powerful pro-Universalist sermons. It was also a view not unpopular among the earliest church fathers. Even today you can read the writings of famous Christian Universalists throughout history here; not to mention a recent book in which Evangelicals debate the topic, Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, Eds., Robin A. Parry and Christopher H. Partridge.

About the Author
KEN NAHIGIAN is a former Christian whose story, "How I Walked Away," appears on the Secular Web.

Acharya S. and Dr. Robert Price on the Infidel Guy Show

In the words of an email I received from Acharya S. --->

The stage: InfidelGuy.com
The event: Dr. Robert Price and I will be appearing together on Reg Finley's "Infidel Guy" radio program on Friday, September 1, 2006 from 8:00 to 9:00 PM EST/5-6PM PST.

The background: Dr. Robert Price is the author of several books on Christian history and mythology, including "Deconstructing Jesus." Some years ago, he wrote an unfavorable review of my book "The Christ Conspiracy" and revealed in it my real name, published in "Free Inquiry" magazine. Needless to say, this occurrence brought me quite a bit of grief.

In any event, cut to the current scene, Dr. Price has read "Suns of God" and written a favorable review and sent it for publication in his Journal for Higher Criticism. We have exchanged cordial emails over the months, and have mended the fences to my satisfaction. So, while this upcoming event will NOT be the contentious free-for-all that some may be hoping for, it WILL be a rare opportunity to hear two of the better known figures in the world of Christian origins and mythology come together for a (hopefully) civil discussion of what I consider some of the most important and interesting issues human beings can think about.

This may be the most important show I have ever done!

Are Marriage Vows Immoral?

We are repeatedly informed that the God of Christianity has absolute morals. Yet when we review the claims made about morality within the Christian world, we are often left scratching our heads. Clearly the claimed system of God’s absolute morality is nothing like what we think of as humans, and we puzzle and puzzle over what gets priority in this God’s world.

We think that genocide and the killing of baby boys is always immoral, but in this absolute morality of the Christian God, apparently at times it is morally acceptable. Numbers 31:17, Judges 20:48, and 1 Samuel 15:3. We think that murderers should be punished, not excused. And most certainly that their infant son should not be killed for their crime. 2 Sam. 12:15. But this is what is required in this absolute Christian God Morality scheme.

And we are told that the times of the Tanakh were different, and God related to the people in a different manner, imposing a different morality. (Sounding like a morality based on relativism, not being absolute.)

Taking just one example--Why did God change His position on taking vows? Did He discover that there is some scale of morality which allows a vow-taker to supercede other moral laws?

God, in the form of Jesus, makes His position on vows very clear. Don’t. “I say to you, do not swear at all.” Matthew 5:34. This is a change from what God had previously stated in Mosaic Law.

Under Moses, if one made a vow, there were certain requirements. Such as: they must not delay in performing it. Deut. 23:21. God even provided for a priority of vows, in that a woman could be overruled by her father or husband. Numbers 30:5 & 8. If a man makes a vow, he cannot break it, but must complete it. Num. 30:2

Following the imposition of the Mosaic Law, we have instances of people swearing to do things that are bound by them. Spies to Rahab the Harlot. Joshua 2:12. David to Saul. 1 Sam. 24:22. David to Bathsheba. 1 Kings 1:13. All of Israel. Ezra 10:5. On this last one, God was upset because they swore falsely, which was a problem. Jer. 5:2

Evidently taking vows was not only contemplated by God’s morality, it was regulated, and enforced. God did state that taking a vow would never be mandatory (Deut. 23:22) but one had the option. Until God said “Do not swear at all” in the Sermon on the Mount. (I have seen it argued that this is not a change in Mosaic Law. It most certainly is! Prior to Jesus, one could or could not take a vow, but if one did, there were certain limitations. After Jesus, one cannot take a vow. Period. That is a change.)

The author of James definitely got the memo, and reiterates God’s new commandment. (James 5:12.) The author of Hebrews apparently missed the new commandment and wrote about taking oaths as still acceptable. (Heb. 6:16) The author of Acts was absent that day, so they, too, seemed to think that God’s morality still provided for taking vows. (Acts 18:18 and 21:23)

Did God’s morality regarding taking vows change? Did something happen where God decided that swearing to do something was not such a good idea, and based upon new information, did away with it altogether?

I can’t help but wonder when God imposed the new rule on swearing, He was thinking about Jephthah and how poorly THAT all turned out.

Jephthah had a Gileadite father, but his mother was a whore. So all the legitimate Gileadites, in what has been unfortunately historical for Christian morality, threw him out of the community-- not based on what he did, but on something over which he had no control. (How Jephthah was to blame for who his mother was is beyond anyone’s guess. Still, he gets the punishment for his Mother’s occupation.)

It turns out that Jephthah was a big, strapping fellow, and being a courageous outcast, attracted a number of other outcasts, into an army. The Gileadites became threatened by the Ammonites. They needed Jephthah’s army. Again, in typical Christian manner, when Jephthah was needed, his heritage became no longer an issue, and the elders of Gilead swore to not only accept him, but to make him their leader. Despite the fact his mother was a whore.

Jephthah agreed to fight the Ammonites. He had an army and the support of his old community, although he lacked the support of the other tribes of Israel.

But Jephthah wanted more. An Edge. A Nudge. He makes a vow. If God would provide him the victory over the Ammonites, Jephthah swore upon arriving home, to provide as a burnt offering to God whatever comes out of his door.

And tragedy occurs. God provides the victory. And the first thing that meets Jephthah when he comes home is his only child—his daughter. Jephthah immediately realizes what he must do, and with wisdom beyond her years, his daughter (we never know her name) says, “You made an oath. You have to keep it. Do what you have to do.”

Jephthah is bound by his oath, and sacrifices his daughter. Now, in our humanistic determination, we would find this act immoral. While breaking an oath is assuredly not encouraged, it can be remedied here without the necessary loss of life.

Somehow, in this absolute morality proposed by the Christian viewpoint, breaking an oath is MORE immoral than killing an innocent child. If I swear to God if He gives a good parking spot, I will break the arms of my son—is it a greater sin to not break his arms upon getting right next to the handicap spot?

Is this why God, in the form of Jesus, decides to do away with swearing altogether, since He realized (upon becoming human) the ludicrous notion that keeping an oath is more important than human life or harm? But if God is changing his mind as to what is moral for humans, we end up with a non-absolute moral system in which to work. Just as secular humanists attempt to frame a moral system, and persuade others of its viability, the Christian is equally attempting to guess at what God wants humans to do and persuade others of the viability. We are no different—you and I.

[A side note for which I apologize, but it will come up, so I might as well head it off as best I can now.

Apologists typically argue that Jephthah did not actually kill his daughter, but rather devoted her to the Lord. The arguments in favor of this claim are:

1. Mosaic Law did not allow for human sacrifice.
2. Jephthah’s daughter’s response.
3. Other children (Samuel) were devoted to the Lord similarly.

The arguments against this claim are:

1. Mosaic Law is not clear about human sacrifice.
2. Jephthah’s response.
3. The “Festival of Lament.”

It leaves us in a bit of a quandary. I think the strongest argument against her being killed is in her recorded response. Upon learning the vow, she asks for a two-month reprieve (violating Deut. 23:21) to grieve over the fact that she will never lose her virginity. After it is recorded in the cryptic “Jephthah did what he vowed to do” we receive the further notation that she never had sex.

It seems odd (unless there was some cultural significance to this) that upon learning she would die, her biggest concern was that she would never get to have sex. While sex is great, at the moment, we would think dying would have a much higher focus of her attention. Further, if she was killed, the phrase, “And she never knew any man” become superfluous. Like saying, “Jephthah killed her, and on, by the way, she missed Yom Kippur next year.”

However, on the flip side, Jephthah’s reaction is extreme, if she was devoted to the Lord. Apologists claim that this is because his lineage would end (as she was an only daughter.) Why? There is nothing to indicate that Jephthah could not have any more children. This was a time of multiple wives. Of kidnapping other people’s daughters to bear children. (Judges 21:21) The Judge before Jephthah had 30 sons and (coincidently) the Judge after Jephthah also had 30 sons.

Jephthah had no inheritance (whore’s son, remember) and the story of his possessions is questionable. (Lived in Tob, but his house is listed in Mizpah.) There is no indication, and it is pure speculation, that Jephthah had any interest in continuing his lineage.

The passage records that each year, the daughters of Israel held a four-day event in which they recounted, or rehearsed the story of Jephthah’s daughter. (The word “lament” in the KJV is bad translation. Sorry.) Not even Samuel got that, and he was devoted, too! The impression left here is more of a tragedy along the lines of a death, rather than a life of servitude.

Mosaic Law does not help the apologist. According to Leviticus 27:3, if a person is consecrated by vow, they can be redeemed by payment to the priest. Jephthah would have had to pay 10 shekels to save her. (Lev. 27:5) A two-month lament? Tearing of clothes? After saving Gilead, we would think Jephthah could spring 10 shekels to save her.

BUT, Lev. 27:28 says no devoted offering may be redeemed. Worse, Lev. 27:29 says that one devoted to destruction could not be redeemed, but must be put to death. What is “devoted to destruction?” If the apologist claims that Jephthah’s daughter was not to be killed but was devoted to be the equivalent of a burnt offering, it would certainly seem feasible that Lev. 27:29 still mandates her death.

But Deut. 18:10 prohibits having one’s sons or daughters “pass through fire” which is claimed to be an idiom of child-sacrifice. Deut. 18:10 doesn’t say anything about fulfilling vows, though.

The best part of Christian “absolute” morals is that there are so many conflicting statements. If Jephthah devoted his daughter can he redeem her? “Yes”—Lev. 27:3, or ”No”-Lev. 27:28. If she was devoted to destruction, must she be killed? “Yes” – Lev. 27:29, “But not by fire” – Deut. 18:10. But Jephthah vowed a burnt offering. Which means, regardless of the apologetic position, he either breaks his vow, or breaks Mosaic law.

Under God’s “absolute morals” what is worse? See—we don’t know! It is all up to argument, and persuasiveness. Just. Like. Relative morals.

My resolution to the problem: I am convinced that Mosaic Law did not develop until the period of the divided kingdoms. The story of Jephthah is a legend from a time prior to Mosaic Law in which a Canaanite sacrificed his daughter in thanks for a victory. His story was incorporated in the Hebrew culture, and then made sanitized and made cryptic by removal of the actual sacrifice.)

As I read the tale of Jephthah, I can’t help but reflect on King David’s similar situation. King David committed murder (perhaps) but certainly adultery—a crime punishable by death. Yet in this Christian morality scheme, there appears to be an out. An exception. Regardless of the immorality or morality of an action, God can impose mercy, and exempt the person from punishment.

What is so “absolute” about that? We have an arbitrary determination of who gets exempted from punishment. Further, God, within this scheme of mercy, can inflict death as a punishment for this crime on another person! (See also “David’s Census.”)

At least with King David, we see that he did something wrong. There is nothing recorded that Jephthah did immoral. There is no reason why God could not have intervened, provided mercy, and saved the daughter. When asked “Why didn’t God?” all that can be said is, “We don’t know.”

Exactly. This system of “absolute morality” has introduced an arbitrary factor (God) in which we can no longer determine when they will step in, when they will not, nor the results. We see that God changes His mind about the morality of vows. We have no information as to the priority of morals—which is more important: death or keeping a vow or following the law?

Although it is not the sole issue with the concept of absolute morality, in this area what I see is one being absolutely ground in arbitrary:

Naturalist: As there is no way for us to determine absolute morality, we must determine it as best we can with what we have.
Christian: Ah—but we have Absolute Morality!
Naturalist: Grounded in what?
Christian: God.

Naturalist: And what is God’s morality?
Christian: As there is no way for us to determine God’s morality, we must determine it as best we can with what we have.
Naturalist: And this is different from me….how?

Minister Sentenced for Sexually Abusing Women

Along with Catholic molester priests there are a whole host of evangelical ministers and pastors who abuse people sexually. Just recently one was sentenced to prison for this. See here. What do you Christians makes of this? Ministers commit adultery, molest children, sexually abuse women, pilfer money from the church, and so on. Pastors are supposed to be the best examples of Christianity, but they don't seem any better than any other Christians. Why is this? Where is the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives? Why is it that Christianity is the only religion that claims a creator God (via the Holy Spirit) takes up "residence" in the life of the believer but it doesn't produce people who act any better than anyone else, especially its pastors?

Did Darwin Lead to Hitler?

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Cultural Wars recently wrote about the supposed connection between Darwin and Hitler. He concluded: The bottom line, and I do not think I'm being too strident in using this language, is that this simplistic "Darwin led to Hitler" thesis is laughably ridiculous. It simply cannot be taken seriously by anyone with even a minimal amount of historical knowledge and the ability to reason. See here.

George Carlin is a Sun Worshipper

Did you know George Carlin is a sun worshipper? This is funny. He's very good. How does he get away with this in a Christian dominated society?

The 47th Carnival of the Godless

The 47th Carnival of the Godless is up with something in it from DC.

The Necessity of Atheism

Over at Ebon Musings there is an essay on The Necessity of Atheism where one can find a brief summary of the core justifications for atheism. It's pretty good, but it doesn't allow for any discussion. So let's discuss it here. What do you think?

There IS Reason to Hope

Thanks to Ed Babinski for tipping me off to two recent articles from the National Secular Society, for they filled me with hope for our future this morning: Australian Youth Follow The Secular Trend, and Spanish Youngsters Have Had It With Religion, Too. From the articles (also see here):

Australian Youth Follow The Secular Trend
Aug. 11, 2006

Less than half Australia’s young people say they believe in a god, and many believe there is little truth in religion, a new study has found. The three-year national study, a joint project between Monash University, the Australian Catholic University and the Christian Research Association, found many young people live an entirely secular life.

The study, The Spirit of Generation Y, found just 48 percent of those born between 1976 and 1990 believed in a god. Dr Andrew Singleton of Monash University, a co-author of the study, said they were surprised by the findings. "It’s well known that there has been a turn away from church attendance and participation in young people," he said. "But we thought there was going to be a move towards alternative spiritualities. There are still a number turning towards it, but not as big as you would have thought."

Religious identity will be among the questions contained in this year’s Australian census. We see the same effect in this census as in the UK census, when 72% of people said they were Christian, even though every other survey and poll showed this to be vastly over-stated. This was because of poor wording of the question.

The Australian survey found 20 percent of young people did not believe in a god and 32 percent were unsure. It also found just 19 percent of those who identify themselves as Christian was actively involved in a church (attending services at least once a month). More than 30 percent of Generation Y was classified as "humanists," rejecting the idea of a god, although some believed in a "higher being."

Dr Singleton said it was a trend that was likely to continue. "We live in a very individualistic and self-orientated society and I don't see a lot of things challenging that," he said. “One of the many predictors of whether we become religious is our parents, and unless there is a massive cultural shift, I see that the trajectory will continue as it is."

Spanish Youngsters Have Had It With Religion, Too
Aug. 11, 2006

A poll of 1,450 young people in Spain shows that most believe that religion is of little importance and has no place in schools. The survey of people aged 15 to 29 shows that attitudes have changed radically since the era of the dictator Franco. Then, homosexuality was banned. Now gay marriage is legal, with 80 percent of those who were asked agreeing with the change in the law.

More than two thirds of those polled said they were in favor of abortion (legalized in Spain in 1985) and 76 percent said they approved of euthanasia "to help someone suffering from an incurable disease if they asked for it." A third declared themselves non-believers, with the majority of the remainder stating that religion had little relevance in their lives.

Although this will be good news for the socialist government of José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, it will cause yet more angst among the Catholic hierarchy who have traditionally held enormous power in Spain.
________________
Technorati tags: Secularism

Truth in Advertising Laws Should Apply to Christian Propaganda!

One of my favorite atheist sites is Daylight Atheism, where if you click on the link you'll see one reason why. The question addressed is why truth in advertising laws are not applied to Christian propoganda. A great question!

Ed’s Side of the Frank Walton-Ed Babinski Story

I first learned about Frank Walton’s “Atheism Sucks” website from J. P. Holding’s “Tekton” website that mentioned it as something worth a peek. I peeked and saw that Frank had created an expanded homage to J.P. Holding’s “Trophy Room” (a room at Holding's website where he lists those whom he imagines he has “defeated” in debates, so basically what Holding has done is hand trophies to himself--can anyone say "narcissist?"). And though Frank could have constructed a homage to J.P. Holding in the form of cataloging and listing what he agrees are J.P. best pro-Christian arguments, instead, Frank denigrates Holding's debate opponents, photoshops them and calls them names. His frequently employed monikers for me include "stanky breath," "most wacked out atheist" [forgetting that I am not an atheist but an agnostic], and "narcissist." J.P. Holding praised Frank for calling me "stanky breath," perhaps because their levels of wit and humor are similar.

Frank also posts photographs of the prison (or one near enough like it) in which J. P. Holding was formerly employed as a librarian, along with images of some of the inmates with whom Holding may have rubbed elbows. Frank suggested that anyone who sought knowledge of who the pseudonymous Mr. “J. P. Holding” was, and who broadcast such knowledge on the internet was endangering Mr. Holding.

I agree that publishing such knowledge on the internet might indeed put Holding in danger. I also read that one inmate told J. P. Holding that if he ever met him on the street, he'd kill him. (Though that makes one curious as to whether anything J.P. said or did in the presence of that inmate could have led up to such a threat. Holding has not said anything about that further question.) On the matter of fearing death in general, Christians are taught to "fear not him who can kill the body, but fear him who can cast both body and soul into hell." So maybe playing up one's fear of being killed is not a perfect witness to J. P. Holding's or Frank Walton's faith, but simply illustrates a human/humanistic concern/fear.

Of course if J. P. Holding thought it was vital above all to maintain his anonymity, why get involved in one of the most controversial of subjects, religion? Why spend countless hours, eventually quitting his job to go full time, so he could challenge, provoke, and engage in a multitude of online debates 24-7 (many of them including some form of verbal heat)? Why volunteer to be featured in Christian apologetics videos on Youtube.com? On the other hand I remain hopeful that J.P. Holding will continue to open up and share with his readers the story of his spiritual and intellectual journey.

Having read hundreds of testimonies and books by people entering and leaving a multitude of different "folds" (and having wrestled with putting my own recollections and knowledge in perspective via composing such a piece and editing a book of nearly 3 dozen such testimonines, a third of which consisted of people who remained Christians but who grew more moderate-liberal in their views, see the book, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists), I have come to appreciate self-examination as an important tool that helps a person gain persepective concerning all they knew and now know, and which helps them (and others who read their stories) to learn things about themselves and their kinship with others, things that they might not have suspected prior to such an endeavor.

All that being said, I was curious after peeking at Frank Walton's "Atheism Sucks" website, and wanted to learn about his testimony as well, since as I said, I have read many first hand accounts over the past three decades from people who enjoyed talking about their journeys of mind and soul, and I continue to find something particularly intriguing about learning how and why people undergo changes and in what ways. I also work at a college and had read at Holding (or Frank’s sites) that the latter was attending college, so I asked him which college. One can read the first email I sent Frank along with his reply and further exchanges that date from April 4th to May 5th 2005, here, at Frank’s website.

For the Record as Frank shows at his own website, I sent him
1 email on Apr. 4th, waited for his reply, and he replied.
1 email on Apr. 5th, waited for his reply, and he replied.
1 email on Apr. 6th, waited for his reply, and he replied.
1 email on Apr. 8th, waited for his reply, and he replied.
1 email on Apr.11th, waited for his reply, and he replied.
1 email on May 4th, waited for his reply, and he replied.
1 email on May 5th, waited for his reply, though I don’t have a record of him replying directly to me via email to that one, he later did leave at least one message on the guestbook of my website, sometime before or on May 23rd to announce that he'd completed a web article about me.

Notice that I originally sent him 7 emails in the space of 30 days (something he apparently refers to in his memory as "countless," and he replied to all six of them. Apparently his message sent to my guestbook boasting of his creation of a web article about me constituted his seventh reply. So he replied to all seven of them.

Frank also claimed that I was "uploading my anger" at him, but I simply asked him a few questions, and challenged his view that "atheism sucks" via examples. My "anger" was neither visible nor relevant. Neither did he tell me at that time to cease emailing him, but rather told me to "keep hacking."

It was weeks after May 5th that I contacted Frank and sent him a few brief emails, and without anger. (Brief ones with some information I found interesting and that he designates as "unrelated topics and links" though they were related to questions of religious belief/non-belief). Those emails were also sent to friends other than Frank, none of whom complained of having received them except Frank. He told me at that time to cease sending him emails, which I promptly did, and his own website, last I looked, stated that it had been "over 500 days" since he had received any sort of unsolicited email from me. Ergo, Frank lies about me being the "ultimate spammer," it's quite the reverse, and in fact it would be nearer the truth to say Frank is both a slanderer and spammer. See below for more details.

NOTE: I will not try to say I am always and in every way totally in the right, because people have different perceptions and interests even when it comes to information one person is curious about and that the other couldn't care less about, or is insulted to read about. So I apologized to Frank a while back for sending him those brief unsolicited emails, and as I said, I ceased sending them when he told me to cease. At a later time I even apologized at length to Frank, and to Glenn Morton--whom I never "stalked" but who had been put on an email list by someone else, and I was also on the same list, so my replies were being sent to "all" on the list--furthermore after I re-joined Theology Web forums, I sent Glenn and over ten other people a private email introducing myself, the same email sent to all, which was friendly in tone. Glenn took offense at that time, and was the one who incorrectly assumed I was "stalking" him for having joined Theology Web. However it was J.P. Holding who invited me to join Theology Web. Both Glenn and even Frank accepted my apologies at first. And Glenn suggested that Frank forgive me as well and concentrate on better things. Frank however, did not take Glenn's suggsestion, but intensified his attempts at his blog of personal intimidation. See below.)

If I may apologize yet again for all to read, I regret and apologize for having pursued my curiosity (about such things as Frank's journey of mind and soul) further than Frank’s patience would allow. I suggested that it was not even necessary for him to share personal details that might give away his name or location or church, but that I wanted to hear about what motivated him, what his journey has been like in general. He replied to my inquiries in an increasingly agitated fashion, and claimed that I was "angry" and invited me to "hack some more," and then he went into high insult mode designing a web article as his next "reply," and sent me unsolicited emails at my website letting me know where his article may be found. The article featured our initial 7 emails and my photo with arrows pointing to my mouth coupled with Frank's lowbrow verbal insults.

After seeing the web article he'd produced about me with my photoshopped picture, I didn't respond in kind but merely sent Frank some of the brief emails mentioned above, that contained maybe a link or two on topics of interest that I was also sending to some friends. I should have ceased contact with him earlier (but to be truthful I remained curious about his further reactions at this point).

Frank sent me approximately fifteen unsolcitied emails, all in one twenty-four hour period on May 25th 2005, to which I only sent one email in reply on that same afternoon, saying, “Frank buddy, I don't mind receiving emails from you, but could we switch to my home email? I used my work email when I wrote you originally because that's where my webmaster contacted me about your guest book message and so I emailed you from work. I have to remember myself to use my home email in future,” after which Frank started sending his unsolicited emails to BOTH my work and home email boxes.

Frank also posted both my home and work email addresses on his website with this note:

“[W]henever we get junk email we do Babinski the pleasure of forwarding it to him. As a matter of fact, readers, if you ever feel like using Babinski’s email for whatever reason (use it for spam; or send him Bible verses - one verse at a time, one day at a time; or send him an article about whatever topic; or send him an email with nothing in it, etc.); you can go ahead and use it...”

Of the 15 emails Frank sent me during a single 24-hour period May 25th 2005, I deleted the ones that simply consisted of chapters of Genesis and Philippians. But I saved the ones with personalized subject lines that Frank wrote. Here they are (to conserve space I’m only including the headings, subject lines and time sent, and only presenting 9 of the original that approximately totaled 15). Note some of the things Frank wrote in the SUBJECT lines below:

----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:45:48 AM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: Phillipians chapter 3
To: ed babinski
Attachments: Attach0.html 6K

----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:46:23 AM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: Phillipians chapter 4
To: ed babinski
Attachments: Attach0.html 6K


----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:29:02 AM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: Have you also seen this movie?
To: ed babinski
Attachments: Attach0.html 1K


HERE’S WHERE I SENT FRANK MY REQUEST TO NO LONGER USE MY WORK EMAIL ADDRESS, BUT INSTEAD USE MY HOME EMAIL ADDRESS:
----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 10:39:16 AM
From: ed babinski
Subject: Frank buddy, could we switch to my home address?
To: Frank Walton

----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:30:24 PM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: Stanky mouth, here's Genesis chapter 1
To: ed babinski [Frank’s nickname for my home address]
leonardo3@msn.com
Attachments: Attach0.html 27K


----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:39:50 PM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: more stanky breath tips... hope it helps
To: ed babinski
ed blabinski [Frank’s nickname for my home address]
Attachments: Attach0.html 4K


----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:41:20 PM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: stanky mouth, here's Genesis chapter 2
To: ed babinski
ed blabinski [Frank’s nickname for my home address]
Attachments: Attach0.html 20K


----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:42:36 PM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: an update from tektonics.org
To: ed babinski
ed blabinski [Frank’s nickname for my home address]
Attachments: Attach0.html 54K
THE MESSAGE FRANK INCLUDED WITH THIS EMAIL BEGAN WITH THE WORDS: “Requiem for a Blockhead” [an article by Holding]

----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:53:51 PM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: hi sewer breath, here's another
To: ed babinski
ed blabinski [Frank’s nickname for my home address]
Attachments: Attach0.html 22K

----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:54:48 PM
From: Frank Walton
Subject: [No subject, but it was Genesis, chapter 4]
To: ed babinski
ed blabinski [Frank’s nickname for my home address]
Attachments: Attach0.html 20K

DURING THE SAME TWENTY-FOUR PERIOD DURING WHICH I REC'D THE BARRAGE OF EMAILS FROM FRANK, I ALSO REC’D THE FOLLOWING EMAIL FROM A DEVOUT EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN IN THE MILITARY IN IRAQ, SOMEONE I’VE KNOWN A BIT LONGER THAN I’VE KNOWN FRANK WALTON

----- Original Message -----
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 at 8:58 AM
From: Timothy T.
Subject: About that photo of me at atheismsucks.com, funny story
To: ed babinski
Hey Ed.
Just to show you that I do read your postings from time to time, I'm going to take advantage of a lull in the battle rhythm here to answer some of your recent posted statements and articles.But first: Nice picture. [Referring to the photo of me at Frank's website.—E.T.B.] And yes, “Atheism Sucks” is indeed too confrontational. Our goal is to try and draw people in by our love and sound reason. I doubt very seriously if J.R.R. Tolkein could have finally gotten the atheist C.S. Lewis to see the truth of Christianity if he had opened with “Hey Clive, you suck!”
Tim

I replied the next day to Timothy T., saying, “It was not a photo snapped for my website. I was taken by a photographer at work when I was asked to make a one-line comment about a topic that I found funny. I was asked what I thought about Furman Univ. possibly building a retirement village on the campus: I answered: ‘Does this mean that there will be no more benches for the students to sit on? Won’t the old folks be using them to feed the pigeons? Yes, I know that there are currently no pigeons on campus, but when the old folks come won’t the pigeons follow?’ And as for your remark that ‘Atheism Sucks’ is too confrontational, I feel the same way, and always felt that way as a Christian too, when evangelizing others, especially one on one. I suspect that folks as confrontational as Frank Walton (at atheismsucks.com) are being deliberately confrontational to avoid confronting what they fear most, i.e., atheists/atheism. If you can turn such people away from you right from the start, then you have avoided getting to know them as persons, or getting to see anything of value in them or anything they say. There is a discussion over at tweb involving Christians who disagree or agree with Frank's tactics. I recently joined in, and even cited your comment above, just identifying you as ‘Tim.’]

Frank also contacted Glenn Morton who held a grievance against me, yet even Glenn did not agree with the lengths to which Frank had gone to insult me, and told Frank that he had forgiven me and suggested Frank do the same.

From May 25th to July 30th 2005--I exchanged a dozen comments with both Walton and Holding in a forum thread on Theology Web titled, “Confrontational Apologetics” that was begun by Matthew. My posts in that thread between those dates can be read if you click on my profile page here (my tweb name is Babaloo), and then click on “Find All Posts By Babaloo,” and scroll down by the date where they begin, till you get to May 25th 2005 and click on it. In that thread I posted portions of the Bible in response to Frank’s note of absolute confidence that he "didn’t see anything in Scripture" regarding how non-confrontational a Christian ought to ideally be.

And instead of dealing with the Scriptures, Frank cited my photo, my breath, and what he perceived to be my grotesquely evil behavior, anything rather than explain why he denied that those particular verses had anything to do, in his opinion, with how confrontational a Christian ought ideally to be.

Those verses certainly appeared to have some connection with the question of “Confrontational Apologetics,” which was the topic of the thread that both Holding and Frank were studiously ignoring. In that same thread Holding told me, “You are so danged stupid it hurts.” While Walton wrote “At least he [Holding] has fans!" [unlike me, supposedly--E.T.B.] So I mocked back, saying, “They cloak themselves in darkness and spend each day creating cartoon voodoo doll images of ‘unbelievers’ to poke verbal pins in, and congratulate themselves for winning imaginary ‘Trophies’ in debate [something J.P. Holding does].” I also pointed them toward some of my fan mail.

To be sure, I am far from being the only person to have ever been insulted by Frank. See for instance a post that Frank wrote about Reginald Finley: "Proof that Reginald Finley is a complete loser" (http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2005/09/proof-that-reginald-finley-is-complete.html) [edited to break link, copy & paste if you want to see it]

I emailed Reginald to see whether he’d seen Frank’s post and received this reply, “Yes. Frank used to come to my site and attack me directly. However he has backed off my site since one of my members posted his home address and we caught him in too many lies to count on my forum.”

In August 2006 Frank sent me an unsolicited email directing me to one of his blog entries titled, "Is Ed Babinski a Homophobe?" He said my use of the words "gay atheist" to describe a blogger called "The Discomfiter" was akin to homophobia. But "The Discomfiter" was intentionally trying to imitate the persona of a "gay atheist." "The Discomfiter's" own blog profile read like this: "Industry: Fashion; Occupation: Interior Decorating; Interests: Refuting Christians...and remodeling Tuscan style villas." So based on "The Discomfiter's" own blogger profile I wrote that I was addressing the "gay atheist" blog owner of "Discomfiting Christianity" (And I put the words, "gay atheist," in quotation marks because I did not believe that "the Discomfiter" was gay nor an atheist, but that he was a Christian (as it turned out he was, Paul Manata) who was attempting to satirize both gays and atheists. So if anyone was "homophobic" it was The Discomfiter, not I. Frank apparently didn't read "The Discomfiter's" blogger profile or see from the rest of "The Discomfiter's blog" how the Christian disguised as a gay atheist was attempting to slander both.

In October, 2006, Frank added to his blog for Monday, October 23, 2006, something titled, "Ed Babinski Exposed - see, we told you so!" which consists of an email from a new employee at the university where I work who said they met me once and upon meeting me suspected I might be a "child molester." So Frank also publishes mere innuendos if they are insulting.

Unfortunately for Frank, I recall the event, the circumstances and know who made the remark. An employee who works in a non-library office (the library includes offices of non-library departments), had been invited along with other new employees to a morning coffee break so as to meet everyone else in the library. I had not seen this employee at any previous coffee breaks in the library's main break room. Neither was this employee at my 50th-birthday surprise party that friends on the library staff arranged in a large lecture room (though there were non-library friends who attended, along with some funny birthday videos sent in by others I knew on campus). Therefore, I had had no prior contact with this person, none that I recall, prior to that morning break for new faculty and staff members. I asked several new staff and faculty members their names and took a pad to spell them correctly since their names have to be added to their mailboxes so my students can file the mail correctly. (All the mail including the latest journals, newspapers, catalogs, flows through my department) As for my mishearing this person's name and asking them to repeat it, I had completed a large morning's mail sort with my students, and arrived a little late to the break and hadn't had either breakfast nor coffee, so I grabbed a pen and a yellow post-it pad which was handy and began introducing myself.

Aside from this person's "suspicion" that they thought I might be a "child molester," their story states that I misheard their name and I misrepeated it. I do not have as acute hearing as I used to have, and it was a relatively small breakroom with plenty of people chatting away in it or passing out food. I simply wished to spell this person's name correctly on their post office box. Neither did I know she was married to another non-library department employee with whom I've had friendly discussions in the break room about a shared love of science fiction and fantasy books and films. So I was surprised upon recognizing this new person's last name, and realizing that this employee's spouse was working in an office close to his.

Thirdly, as for my relationship with fellow employees, they have requested I deliver humorous speeches on special occasions, including retirement speeches. The longest serving employee at Furman asked me personally to deliver her retirement speech, and I worked with my comedy duo friend Ryan and we came up with a great presenation that the audience loved. A dean of the colege who atteneded told me it was the funniest retirement speech he'd ever heard. And the retiree and her daughters thanked me profusely. On my 50th birthday the staff threw me a surprise birthday party that was simply overwhelming. I rec'd remails from former bosses and people I've worked with, that were read aloud. One former co-worker (whom I had roasted when she left) phoned me during the party to wish me well. Another sent me an email that said she still keeps a copy of the funny speech I wrote and delivered when she left Furman for a job in Florida. One person wrote and delivered a funny poem, another rewrote the lyrics to a Paul Simon song, making it read, "50 Ways to Work in Serials" and made it into a sing along that everyone joined in on, others purchased gift items that had turned 50-years-old just like me, items that included Play Doh and Yatzee, and presented me with them. They made banners with the things that happened the year I was born, the top ten songs and movies of that year and other top ten lists. I even rec'd an email from the library's former director. And my friend Ryan (who is my comedy buddy at work) made a video featuring interviews with professors and others on campus whom I knew who couldn't make that morning's party, and their comments were sweet and hilarious. It was a surprise party, and my boss took me to the room where everyone was waiting and they jumped out and shouted Happy Birthday. I was taken aback tremendously. I also have received birthday cards from a former boss on my birthday for years. I feel very fortunate to work where I do with such wonderful people.

Oh My Sweet...LORD!

Oh, Jesus H. Christ, how I wish this was only a joke, but it's apparently not:

The sort of guilt-by-association that comes by this must do more to motivate a believer to single-handedly dismiss Christianity, sheerly out of a desire to dissociate from such a travesty, than all the horrors of the Dark and Middle Ages combined.

HT: Pandagon
________________
Technorati tags: Godidiots

Impossible to Believe

I write this post after having read J.E. Holman's excellent post "Now what, Christian?" I want to share a simple and profound truth, a realization that I have come to grips with: faith is impossible for me. Many Christians, upon hearing this, might blink at me with disbelief, protest in denial, or simply try and dialouge with me in hopes of showing me that I have a faulty conception of what faith is. I recall talking with a fellow apostate, Robin, and telling her that it's impossible for me to believe.

First of all, I tried to believe. I sincerely did believe for a decade that the Bible was God's word, that Jesus Christ was his Son, and that Christ was crucified to atone for our sins and that he rose from the dead. I sincerely did believe in creationism, in biblical inerrancy, in the loving providence of God. But now I cannot. I cannot go back to believing in any of that again. I cannot go back through the agony of second-guessing God's motives with each passing prayer, wondering if this or that is a yes-or-no sign. I cannot muster the intellectual gymnastics needed to make creationism or inerrancy work. I cannot work consciously to edit my thoughts and make sure that they confirm to the will of God. For me, it's impossible for me to do that all again. Even if I absolutely wanted to, I don't have the energy, the willpower, or the mental gymnastics. I have seen inerrancy and creationism refuted and I am extremely confident that the resurrection never happened.

Some believers argue that I was never saved to begin with. Even if that's so, why didn't God save me at the age I sincerely thought I was saved.?Why did God let me go groping around in the dark suffering under the honest delusion that I really was saved? What kind of God of love would allow for that? How long was God determined to let me undergo the delusion before having me snap out of it? Why did God let me labor under this delusion for 10 years? This is what I don't understand. I wanted to believe. I wanted the closeness I sincerely believed that others had with God. I wanted God to speak to my heart the way other Christians said that God did to theirs. I wanted so desperately to hear the voice of God, just some indication that he was there and that he loved me.

I wonder the same of other members who left the fold. Why didn't God really save John Loftus to begin with and never let him go? Why did God keep his eternal arms around Ed Babinski or JE Holman? I also think of Robert M Price and Charles Templeton. Both Price and Templeton really did believe that they were saved. Biblical criticism hit Price's faith and withered at it until there was nothing left and the problem of pain and suffering hit Templeton's heart until his faith eroded. If both men were unsaved, why didn't God save them to begin with? If both men were, indeed, saved, then why didn't God work harder to keep them into the fold?

All I can think of is that the biblical God must be a cruel beast if he really does exist. These honest men, including myself, absolutely wanting to believe. And yet we cannot believe. It's impossible for me. I am sure it's the case for Price and it was for Templeton. I will gladly let Loftus and Babinski speak for themselves. If God saved us, why didn't he keep us? Or, why didn't God save us to begin with so we would never leave the fold? I ask the question for many Christians: why does God make faith impossible?

Matthew

Now What, Christian?

The year was 1995. I was just about to begin preaching school, and when so much was going right for me as I went through every day, tinged with anticipation of the good things that awaited me in the ministry, I was troubled. I wasn't just troubled, I was stumped, disarmed by what someone, an atheist, had asked me. I was an outgoing personal evangelist for ten months before this as I hit the ground running at my conversion to save a sin-sick, dying world. I was used to facing tough questions while "witnessing" to unbelievers, but as a certain young, un-intimidating, blond-haired man sat before me (an atheist whom my preaching friends thought I had a better chance at converting), I was stopped dead in my tracks.

They were wrong. Not only did I fail to convert him, but he asked a question that totally disarmed me and made us all squirm. I had no answer for it, no sharp retort that would make me, my friends, and our faith look cool and sophisticated.

"Well, I honestly don't believe in the bible or Jesus. I've tried but I can't, so what is one to do if they can't believe?" I had no answer for him. I had never faced this question before. After unsuccessfully making an argument from Pascal's Wager, I think I remember saying something to him, like "just keep trying and God will providentially show you."

"So in the mean time, if I die without believing, am I going to burn?", he asked. After a long pause, and with an embarrassed look on my face, I said, "Yes, you will, but I will pray for you that God will grant you the time to repent."

I felt terrible saying this. The atheist was very soft spoken. He was an almost speechless kid, not particularly well versed in argument or atheology. He just couldn't believe. Our church youth group had been stringing this guy along for a while, asking him to pray and sing and come to youth functions with us. He did, but it was all to no avail. We never could convert him.

Before our conversation ended, I was compelled to say something rude. I tried one last time to guilt-trip him with a disturbing, unsettling comment that would prod him into submission to the fearsome almighty. Since the Bible made it clear to "seek and ye shall find," and "to him who knocks, it shall be opened" (Matthew 7:7), and since Jesus and his word could never be wrong, this could only mean that this young man who struck me as nothing but sincere and forthright in his desire to believe, didn't really want to believe. His heart was captured by satan, and I had to help him break free. I knew I was really honoring my God by saying this to finish off our conversation, "Too bad you're choosing to burn in Hell then! 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.'" He sharply acknowledged my slightly aggressive tone and said, "So because I can't believe, I deserve to burn?" I backed off him with something soft, like, "Just remember that in the time it takes you to come to belief, you are still lost and will burn in hell if you die in the mean time, but I will keeping pray for you." I thought I could get him to believe out of fear. But instead of getting a rise out of him, he just calmly glanced around, collecting his thoughts, and said again, "Well, if I can't believe, I can't believe now, can I? Why should I burn for following my brain?" As the discussion continued, his honesty continued to shine right through, making me yet more uncomfortable. He kept on inquiring what to do since he couldn't believe.

Out of options and desperate to make a convert, I said again what so many preachers say, "Just try and live the Christian lifestyle first and faith will develop later." He just grinned, shook his head, assuring me it wouldn't work, got into his car, and drove off. I never saw him again, and I don't even remember his name, but I think of him from time to time.

My preaching friends and I jested amongst ourselves how sad it will be to see that man's poor soul burning in Hell. One of my friends said to me, "I hope the Lord causes something bad to happen to him so he will turn to God." I shutter to think how I actually found such a statement appropriate at the time!

Leaving this discussion, I was angry at myself for not having the convincing words to convert him. I was also angry at the preachers I looked up to for not giving me the proper arguments to win over a hungering soul. I lost out to the devil. I felt defeated and weak.

Just less than ten years later, I found myself in exactly this man's shoes. In the summer of 2003, my wife, still a staunch believer, commended my soul to hell. When we began to argue over my decision to leave the ministry, I asked my wife, "What am I supposed to do? I can't believe in theism anymore. I've tried." Her words, "Then you'll just have to go to hell!" Amazing the role reversals life puts us through, wouldn't you say?

To this very day, there is no Christian who can deal with this question. They are painfully disarmed by it, and I can see why. It hurts to be out of options, to see a problem and know you can't fix it.

I want to take this time and ask our Christian readers, what do we hellbound infidels do now that your apologetics have failed, and your arguments and testimonies proven ineffective in converting us back to the fold? We've prayed and cried, and reflected on our inner-selves. We've read and studied and meditated and reflected some more on our sinful, depraved consciences, now what? What if we are never providentially led back into God-belief as most atheists aren't? What if we breathe our last breaths as unbelievers, painfully thinking to ourselves, "But I can't believe!" What should we expect when we wake up in the next world? Fire? Torture? Darkness? Tumultuous agony for eternity? When all your quips and quotes, your testimonies and trilemmas, your apologetics and promises, have failed to pierce our targeted hearts, then what?

Should we be thinking about how in hell we'll finally have the faith we wanted here on Earth and finally got the answers we sought, but now it's too late? Should we be thinking about how we had the freewill to believe, if only we'd used it, even though we couldn't use it because we couldn't believe? Should we be thinking about what we will say to God, the angels, and our fellow condemned souls as we are ushered off to the empire of the damned?

Now what, Christian? What are we to do? Where are your answers now? What witnessing tool will you whip out to finish this job? What assurances, what hope can you give us?

(JH)

Welcome to the World of Christianity (by Harry McCall)

As a Christian, you are now following THE supreme God who created the universe. The main facts you need to know are these:

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

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

Satan (a fallen angel) is your main and only adversary who leads a small rag-tag army (1/3 the size of God's) of fallen angels (demons).

Satan has limited power (Only what little control God gives him).
Satan has no earthly members (Just a few "Dabblers").
Satan has no budget.

AND YET...

According to God's own word, the Bible (especially the Book of Revelation), God, with all the above supreme attributes, is losing a battle He created and even sacrificed His only begotten son to win.

For instance, most of humanity will one day stand before your God at the Great White Throne of Judgment to "give an account" of why they as mortal sinful creatures with limited understandings, screwed up, and then they will be cast into a Lake of Fire (whose smoke rises forever), i.e., blamed for their loss of innocence and (and/or their great great great ancestor's loss of innocence) for all eternity.

HOW ARE WE TO MAKE SENSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE?

It is a divine Mystery. (A theological term employed by the Catholic Church to depict the lack of understanding we mere mortals have of God's ways.)

Harry McCall (former ministerial student, whose testimony appears in Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists)

P.S., Liberal Christians and universalists may disagree with some of the above "welcome" statements, however, Christian philosopher Victor Reppert at his blog, "Dangerous Idea" has tangled with the question of how a finite being like Satan could be racking up so many souls compared with God who has an infinite amount of resources and wisdom as His disposal.

More Chain-pulling for the Anti-Intellectualist Right

A free marketplace of ideas doesn't bode well for orthodox Christian beliefs. An article in the American Family Association Journal, "Colleges Turn Left, Students Think That's Right," concludes:

what students and parents don’t realize is that today’s campuses are functioning as an indoctrination into the realm of liberalism. As early as the 1790s, Yale college students were openly disavowing Christ. Despite periods of revival, the denial of Christian beliefs and the acceptance of secularism have persisted and gained strength through the years.

Surely not! Surely being in a place which encourages rational thinking and critical examination of evidence and truth values is good for Christianity, right? Apparently not:

J. Budziszewski wrote,

The trial everyone has heard about – but most people underrate – is the sheer spiritual disorientation of the modern campus...Methods of indoctrination are likely to include not only required courses, but also freshman orientation, speech codes, mandatory diversity training, dormitory policies, guidelines for registered student organizations and mental health counseling

My favorite take on how these things endanger and indoctrinate students in an anti-Christian way comes from PZ Myers:

Mental health counseling, though, I can see as dangerous to born-again Christians. It might make them sane.

All Budziszewski has done is spread more of the "Religious Liberty for Me, but not for Thee," approach. That is to say that since universities encourage students to tolerate the views of others, Christians benefit (they are tolerated and allowed to exercise religious freedom) but decry the benefit being given to the Muslim, Buddhist, atheist...etc.

Given the fact that universities are flooded with Christian campus groups and often are set in college towns which contain at least 1-10 Christian churches per thousand people ratio, I find it hard to believe that people like Budziszewski could be so dense as to cry that attending a university "indoctrinates" you. As if university students are isolated from family and friends, or are not allowed to attend as many worship services a week as they want, and pray as much as they want, and read their Bible as much as they want, etc.

In point of fact, this belies the weakness of the value system Budziszewski wants to protect: these students choose to lay aside the faith of their childhood to explore the world of ideas they discover. Some find the world too large for the narrow mind they brought with them to college, and grow out of it. Big surprise...

American students (esp those raised in Christian homes, which is who this article is about) are basically surrounded by Christianity and Christian culture from birth. The truth is that Budziszewski knows this, and he knows that the "disorientation" he declaims platitudes over is really "exposure to different thinking." Well, sorry, but that's the function and purpose of a university. The reason this exposure is so deleterious in the view of Budziszewski and Focus on the Family and others is the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of many of these selfsame Christian beliefs and values -- they are easily shown as such.

If you want your kiddies "safe" from the "dangerous" ideas, then you'd better not just homeschool them for high school, but "home college school" them too. There's no better way to ensure the survival of your religious views than to isolate your children from reality, such that the indoctrination of views you've exposed them to since birth is never challenged by competing worldviews. This article really underscores the saddest thing -- these people can't see that the fact that university education frequently leads to a deconversion, or change in views, is quite telling of their childrens' views in the first place. If your kids are brought up believing ignorant things, and you want them educated, then what in the hell do you expect?

If you don't want them to question the logic of basing their entire lives on the reliability of a dusty set of scrolls of unknown origins, you'd better not send them somewhere that encourages serious rational thinking. The college you pick had better not teach them modern chemistry, physics, biology, etc., or else they may start to be a bit incredulous about axe heads floating on water, global floods and bathtub arks, and people raising from the dead (just like in other myths they learn as myths). Perhaps Patriot University ("Dr." Dino's alma mater), or Pacific International University ("Dr." Baugh's alma mater)?

Another funny note is that the public universities suffered a reversal in this trend since the '80s, whereas Christian colleges cause more deconversions since the '80s.

(HT: PZ)
________________
Technorati tags: Culture Wars

The Sick Mind of a Lone Christian

Someone sick lone individual is sending emails to people with mine and Daniel Morgan's return email addresses on them. Ed Babinski pointed it out to me because he received something that had the official look of coming from me, but it didn't come from me. Then on a different blog someone commented using my name who made statements to the effect that I was a homosexual pedophile, and by clicking on my name it takes a person to my blogger profile. I was alarmed at this and immediately denied that such a comment came from me, but my comment was deleted, leaving the other comment falsely attributed to me to stand.

Deleting my comment when I denied what that false impersonator wrote can be traced to the blog owner, and this is what I strongly object to and should be condemned even if the site is a parody of mine by a Christian. That blog owner is Paul Manata.

"The Discomfiter," Christian History, Crazy Human Primate Species

Layman, Thanks very much for your comments concerning my recent post, Steve Hays of Triablogue, The Discomfiter, and Stephen Colbert. I shared the information about bad/crazy things religious people have done (and the craziness of the conflicting varieties of Christianities) simply in an effort to level the playing field when dealing with someone as crazy as "The Discomfiter" whom I assume to be a Christian in atheist clothing bent on showing how crazy atheists must be.

I was not condemning all Christians, nor would I suggest that a person should disbelieve in Christianity because of its failures. I disbelieved in Christianity after examining the Bible and also after acknowledging goodness, love, and wisdom in people other than Christians.

As for charity and Christianity, or for that matter, civilization and Christianity, there are diverse opinions. But most would agree that Christianity's contributions in the arts and sciences peaked a while back. Today anyone of any religion or none can produce wonderful music, or impressive scientific research.

As for health care/hospitals, it’s true, in the early 1800s, religion was still the monopoly provider. And the hospitals themselves were each devoted to preaching the religion of a specific religious sect, and could turn away whomever they wished on that basis, or forbid the sick from being visited by ministers or rabbis of a rival sect while at the hospital but had to endure preachments made by that sect’s ministers. Also in the early 1800s that system was failing—remember Dickens?—and the response came swiftly. Think of Florence Nightingale (a universalist Christian, a view others deemed heretical, who taught that hospitals should admit anyone regardless of beliefs and also allow them access to whatever minister or rabbi they wished), or think of the Red Cross (the American Red Cross was founded by Clara Barton a universalist Christian, while the International Red Cross was founded by Andre Dunant--a gay man), Jane Addams and Hull House. New kinds of private, nonprofit organizations sprang up, as did unprecedented forms of government activity. It’s worth noting that most of the replacement institutions were not “lifestance organizations.” They weren’t other churches or fraternal groups. Indeed, they tended not to be the kind of organizations that sorted their members by lifestance at all. In a word, they were secular.

Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who spent years in Africa as a doctor and helped publicize the plight of suffering Africans, was a liberal Christian and author of The Search of the Historical Jesus in which he concluded that Jesus was a man who preached that the world was going to end soon. And, Helen Keller (the woman who lost her sight and hearing to a bout with Scarlet Fever when she was very young, but who learned how to communicate via touch, and who proved an inspiration to generations of people suffering from severe disabilities) was both a Swedenborgian, and a member of the American Humanist Society.

TODAY, a vast number of charities (including organizations devoted to finding cures for diverse diseases) are secular, or of a non-Evangelical Christian variety. There is the American Cancer Society, The Heart Association, The Will Rogers Institute, and many others. There’s the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that Gates poured 30 billion into, and his friend Warren Buffet poured a little bit more than 30 billion into. (Both of those men being reticent and reluctant to connect themselves with religion.)

In fact, if it were not for a host of scientists, engineers and agriculturalists--who happened to be either lapsed churchgoers, unorthodox Christians, heretics, apostates, infidels, freethinkers, agnostics, or atheists--and their successes in the fields of agricultural and medical science, hundreds of millions would have starved to death or suffered innumerable diseases this past century. Those agricultural and medical scientists “multiplied more loaves of bread” and “prevented/healed more diseases” in the past hundred years than Christianity has in the past two thousand.

Likewise, TODAY, institutions of higher learning are mostly secular and non-Evangelical.

Richard Dawkins, an atheist, also has made a remark I find interesting: “If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference?” [quoted in The Guardian]

As for famous atheists who have been mass murderers, yes they have. But they were driven not only by selfish ideals, but also religious-like ones, like promises of a “worker’s paradise,” or a holy book be it a “Communist Manifesto,” or in the case of Maoism, a “Little Red Book” with “verses” his people had to memorize. Such ideals and practices seem to motivate human primates en masse. Absolute certainty is certainly a huge temptation. Add the fact that the states and churches of Europe pounded the message into people’s heads for centuries, “Obey!” People were fed up with that. And Marx was fed up with the system of state and church that was using and abusing people as interchangeable parts in factories, the same factories that Marx’s religious counterpart, William Blake called, “Satan’s mills.” As for Hitler and Stalin, apparently they both wanted to become priests in their youth. And Stalin it appears was well versed enough in the Bible to be aware of the story of the betrayal of Christ by someone near him, and killed anyone he feared might one day become his Judas. Mao arose during the confusion and upheavals of a World War. The Kymer Rouge I have read arose partly in response to America’s war in Vietnam, especially illegal secret bombing missions conducted by the U.S. on the Cambodian-Viet Nam boarder. What I’m saying is that the history of human primates on this planet seems to have explanations of complex and varied sorts.

I think we were lucky that when Europe was going up in flames during the wars between Christian nation-states following the Reformation, they didn’t have modern weaponry. That “Thirty Years War” has been compared to World War 1 without the modern weapons. Of course the Christian west had the advantage of guns and steel and was able to exert control over a lot of the world for a couple centuries (not to mention the advantages that the “germs” carried by westerners to the New World, brought the conquerors).

About serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, I read that he was raised Christian and in his youth attended a fundamentalist Christian school. He reverted back to his chilhood faith in prison. I’m sure his victims wished he had reverted sooner. Perhaps the portrayal in his school of atheists as evil teachers of total irresponsibility made him think that's all any atheist could or should be, and maybe he pawned off his own inclinations on "atheism," as an excuse, based on such teachings. Honestly, I don't know many atheists in America who would agree that a great way to make friends is to keep people's heads in your freezer.