Good Old Christian Morals!

Brad is a good kid. He is 24, a college student with a straight A-average, and a young man who makes his parents proud. He goes to church too. Every Sunday he’s there, singing hymns and “lifting up holy hands” praising God. He even gets together with the church youth group and travels to see famous Christians singers and performers, like Rebecca St. James and The Power Team. He goes to the Lord in prayer and asks to be a better person. He feels led of the Spirit of the Lord to do this and that. He feels that God is with him, giving him guidance and direction in life.

Now Brad isn’t perfect. He’s just human like the rest of us. Sure, he has his fraternity buddies over to party once in a while, and he tends to annoy some of his more straight-laced, gray-haired neighbors by playing loud pop/rap music, but he’s a good kid. Like most Christian young people, Brad believes that other forms of sexual activity, minus intercourse, are not sins and that God is OK with them. Plus, he thinks God won’t mind if he has premarital sex with his girlfriend at least once to see if they’d be compatible in the long term. When he finally marries the girl, and several years go by, he runs into an attractive “other woman” and quickly shacks up in an affair at the local Motel 6. But he breaks it off afterwards, knowing that he is a Christian and Jesus forgives him. After this happens about 4 more times, people get concerned that he has problems, but he finally quits fooling around for good. God has been patient with him to restore him to his grace, as has his longsuffering wife, and for that, Brad is thankful and resumes his Christian walk.

A year goes by and Brad again shows his sinful human nature. He is at a huge football game and his favorite team just won. Fans are so excited that a massive riot ensues. Thousands of crazed, inebriated fans take to the streets, turning over cars, throwing rocks through store windows, looting businesses, climbing up street signs and tearing off the names, causing great harm and millions of dollars in damages. Just that morning, Brad was in church singing “Oh How I Love Jesus,” and “Shall We Gather At the River,” but that night he was being arrested and hogtied by the police and thrown into the back of a police van, along with 71 other pieces of human garbage. But Brad knows Jesus loves him. Jesus loves him so much, in fact, that Jesus gave him a wealthy father who will get him a damn good lawyer. The attorney will argue that Brad was the unfortunate victim of Riot Consciousness Syndrome, a fancy term describing how the moral resolve of an individual weakens in the highly charged emotional atmosphere of a large group. Brad will get off with a slap on the wrist for smashing that department store window and stealing that nice Italian leather jacket. Yep, Jesus really loves him!

But Brad was not happy about what he did or getting caught. Brad headed back to church, as you probably imagined he would. He can be found sitting attentively in those pews, listening to the preacher tell him that “without God, your life will be empty and evil will come in to fill the void.” His pastor tells him, “Put God in your life, and you’ll be good. Put the devil in your life, and you’ll be bad.”, and “There is no good without God.” But Brad notices that a number of non-religious friends he has are perfectly moral people, so he inquires as to how they can be moral without having God. His pastor told him what any good minister would, “Some are more moral than others, and Christian people are not perfect, but imagine how evil the world would be if there was no religion!” This satisfied Brad, so instead of considering that many of the irreligious people he knew would be considered morally superior to him by a long shot, he just chalked up his sins to “weaknesses of the flesh” and moved on, giving God the credit for his restoration to the fold!

I changed the name and tweaked a few details, but “Brad” is based on a real Christian man I know. Quite honestly, Brad well represents the moral integrity of the average Christian, albeit not counting the faithful fanatics, who have no lives outside of crossing the Ts’ and dotting the Is’ of their religious dogmas. Brad, like so many other unfortunate religious dupes, bought into the false idea that religion, Christianity in particular, equals good (or at least, not as much “bad”), and if people don’t have it, they would surely do evil. Sort of reminds me of this old story…

A woman was visiting a seaport, and while riding with a captain, asked, “What do the people of this town eat?” The captain replied, “Mostly fish.” The young lady continued, “I thought fish was a brain food, and yet these seem to be the most stupid people I ever saw”. The captain responded, “Imagine how stupid these people would be if they didn’t eat fish!”

Christian apologists offer us the exact same rationale; Christianity tells us that faith in Jesus produces good morality, and when we point out that Christians are no more (and, in fact, are sometimes less) moral than those with no faith at all, they tell us how immoral the world would be if we had no religion!

(JH)

Control Beliefs....Control

Here at DC we are dealing with control beliefs. Control beliefs control how we view the evidence for and against Christianity. Those of us who debunk Christianity have control beliefs which interpret the available evidence against Christianity. Those who come here and defend Christianity have control beliefs which interpret the available evidence on behalf of Christianity. The question therefore is this: where to we get these control beliefs? I have previously suggested that we get them from the accidents of birth; that is, we get them from when and where we were born. See here, here, here, here, and see also exbeliever’s take on it, here.

Some Christians who have debated with us seem to take the position that evidence is all that is needed, and that intelligence will lead someone to see the same things that they see. But from the perspective of most all philosophically trained people THAT viewpoint is truly ridiculous.

My cumulative case arguments are to help the reader see things differently. There is no single piece of evidence or lone argument that will cause someone to change their control beliefs, because evidence is always interpreted by our control beliefs. Control beliefs must come crashing down all together or not at all. Control beliefs cause us to accept problematic conclusions in some areas because the sum total of what we believe has fewer problems than the alternative way of viewing things. I try to share why I see things differently than Christians do, and they do likewise with me. But it's all with the seeing. It's not about intelligence or education. It's about seeing. And any philosophically trained person knows this.

A cumulative case is one where the weight of the sum total of arguments just all of a sudden topples your previous set of control beliefs, and that is what happened to those of us here who debunk Christianity.

We all operate from control beliefs and presuppositions. But ours at DC are much fewer than those who defend Christianity. Christians must defend the whole canonized Bible, and/or presuppose it all.

Anyone who thinks about this one lone difference between our respective control beliefs will see clearly that our presuppositions are better. On the one hand, the fewer things we must presuppose, then the more likely that accurately describes our human condition, based upon the principle of parsimony. On the other hand, unlike Christians, I realize a healthy measure of skepticism about control beliefs because I know they are largely adopted from a culture. So my control beliefs are skeptical ones. That’s why I have argued for the Outsider Test and think it's a better way to proceed.

Job and the Existence of a Good God

This deserves a post of its own, since I have been speaking about Job and a good God here, and here.

1) If God exists, and if he is good, and if he wants us to believe he exists and that he is good, then he should have a morally acceptable reason for causing intense creaturely suffering that is remotely understandable from our perspective.

2) There isn't a morally acceptable reason for an existing good God to cause intense creaturely suffering in our lives that is remotely understandable from our perspective.

3) .: Either God doesn't exist, or he isn't good, or he doesn't care whether we believe he exists and is good.

Why Trust God? (Part II)

Steve at Triablogue in The Servant King,responded to Why Trust in God? I will respond to him here.

Notice Steve didn’t say anything about my claim that Job is not reporting historical conversations between God, Satan and Job.

But Steve does say: “How does he know that God's interaction with Satan had no larger motives than "winning a bet"? He doesn't. Loftus just assumes it, because that assumption helps him in making the God of Christianity look bad. It's not difficult to think of potential reasons for God to have done what He did. It's not difficult to think of potential benefits to Job and his family, indications of God's love for Job, etc. Does Loftus somehow know that Job's later blessings and his eternity in Heaven, for example, are outweighed by what he suffered for a portion of his life on earth? How would Loftus know such a thing? If Job's sufferings led to the glorifying of God, the improvement of Job's character, the further punishment of Satan, the instruction of millions of people who would later read the book of Job, etc., how can Loftus possibly know that Job shouldn't have been allowed to suffer?”

There’s a lot in Job I don’t have the time to comment on. But God merely says that Job is his faithful servant, blameless and a man who fears him. (1:7-9) After the first test, God later adds that Job maintained his integrity “even though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason (2:3).” Notice that God says there was no reason for the suffering brought on Job. God said it! This is gratuitous suffering without a point…“without any reason.” That’s why I said it was basically a bet with satan, for that's the only reason for God ruining Job for no reason. And the text says that God caused the suffering too, for God accepts responsibility for causing it. The question of the bet was whether or not Job would buckle and curse God. And I maintain that Steve’s view of God already knew what Job would do. So my question was why did God accept the challenege in the first place, according to the story.

And Steve totally misses the carnage that God caused upon Job’s family, as well as upon Job himself. All of his and his wife’s sons and daughters were killed, as well as all of his sheep, camels and servants, except three of Job’s servants. This happened, according to God “without any reason.” And then Job was stricken with boils and had to deal with idiots who said the reason why this happened was because Job had sinned. “Without a reason.” Nevermind there were other people involved. Like his children, servants, and his wife. His servants may have had families of their own, who suffered the loss of their loved ones. His wife advised him the only rational thing there was to do: “Curse God.” Why? Because it was all done “without any reason.” The God in this story does not care about Job, his wife, his children, his servants, and his animals at all.

And what are we to gain from this story that has instructed so many readers down through the ages? What? That God can do whatever he wants to do with his creatures “without a reason.” That’s comforting, isn’t it? So Job went through these things, as told in this story, so that I can learn God can do whatever he wants to with us and that we are supposed to accept that God can give and God can take away, but we’re supposed to accept all that God does and maintain our integrity? Hmmmmm. We already knew God can do what he wants to with us. He's bigger than us. God is the biggest bully on the block. He’s more powerful than us, if he exists. So? That’s not news at all. What we want to know is whether or not God cares for us. We want to know if he’ll protect us from most of our sufferings. We want to know if God has a reason for the sufferings we encounter in this life. But in the story of Job the only answer we receive is that God can do whatever he wants with us to win a bet with the heavenly prosecutor….for his own self-serving “glory.”

Steve again: “He also assumes, without evidence again, that Satan was "fully credentialed" in Heaven and that there couldn't have been a good reason for allowing Satan to act as he did. How does Loftus know these things? He doesn't. But acting as if he knows them prepares the way for his criticism of the God of Christianity and makes his article more emotionally appealing to people who already agree with him.”

In the Old Testament Satan is seen as a Servant of God. “The original faith of Israel actually had no place for Satan. God alone was Lord, and thus whatever happened, for good or ill, was ascribed to God. “I kill and I make alive,” says the Lord, ‘I wound and I heal.’ (Deut. 32:39; Isaiah 45:6-7; I Sam. 2:6-7). It was not inconsistent, on the one hand, to believe that God might call Moses to deliver Israel from Egypt, and on the other hand, for God to want to murder him on the way, (Exod. 4:24-26). When Pharaoh resisted Moses it was not ascribed to his free will, but to God’s hardening of his heart (Exod. 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; 14:4,8,17; Joshua 11:20, etc). Likewise, it is God who sent an evil spirit on Saul (I Sam. 16:14-16,23), and it was God who sent a lying spirit to enter the mouths of the four hundred prophets of Ahab (I Kings 22:22; see II Sam. 17:14).” [Walter Wink’s Unmasking the Powers, pp. 11-44].

“The one instance where śātān describes a celestial figure who is not in any way hostile to God is Num 22:22, 32. The Angel of Yahweh is sent to be a śātān to sinning Balaam. The angel performs his task first by blocking the path so that Balaam’s ass may not proceed, then by rebuking Balaam. Only when Balaam’s eyes are opened does the angel śātān become visible to Balaam. The angel is both adversary to and accuser of Balaam, and is dispatched on his mission by Yahweh. [The Anchor Bible Dictionary].

“One possible translation of “Yaweh,” God’s name, is “He causes to happen what happens.” If, then, God has caused everything that happens, God must also cause evil. But God was also the God of justice (Gen 18:25). So how could God be just and still be the one to cause evil? This was the terrible price Israel had been forced to pay for its belief that God was the primary cause of all that happens. Gradually God became differentiated into a “light” and a “dark” side, both integral to the Godhead. The bright side came to be represented by the angels, the dark side by Satan and his demons. This process of differentiation took a long time to complete so that Satan makes only three late appearances in the O.T.” [Walter Wink’s Unmasking the Powers, pp. 11-44].

In II Sam. 24:1 an angry God incites king David to carry out a wrongful census. But in I Chronicles 21:1, which is a post Babylonian captivity revision of Samuel and Kings, it is now revised to read that “Satan” (used here for the first time as a proper name) is blamed as the one who incited David to carry out the census. Of course, if God indeed used Satan to accomplish his purposes here, then why not just do it himself--but such a relationship seems contrived. In Zech 3:1-5, Satan (Lit. “the accuser”) is seen in the role of prosecuting attorney who brings a valid accusation against Joshua, which God rejects because of his mercy. While we don’t like prosecutors, they aren’t evil just because they are doing their job. It does, however, say a great deal about us as people if we greatly fear and greatly dislike the prosecutor. If we think the prosecutor is evil, then it’s most likely because we are the evil ones. In Job 1-2, Satan (again, Lit. “the accuser”) cannot be an evil being if he is still a fully credentialed member of the heavenly court, one of the “sons of God.” “Satan’s role here is somewhat like an overzealous district attorney, where in his zeal to uncover injustice steps over the edge into entrapment. In all of this Satan manifests no power independent of God, and there is no condemnation of him by God.” “There is nothing in the context to indicate that the angel is evil.” [Baker’s Encyclopedia of the Bible, “Satan”].

Steve again: “Loftus is criticizing the Christian God's behavior, as if he knows of a higher standard by which to judge that God, and he suggests that we should object to the behavior of Josef Mengele. He doesn't give us any reason to agree with his assessment of the Christian God or Mengele. He's relying on the assumption that his readers, most of whom have lived under the influence of largely Christian societies, will agree with his moral sentiments. But what reason do we have to accept Loftus' moral assessments under his belief system?”

I’m actually dealing with the text itself. God says he did it “without any reason.” God said that! God! When I criticise God’s moral standards in the story of Job I am criticizing the story itself, from what the story itself tells me.

Steve again: “And why are we supposed to think that the Christian God is similar to Mengele? Was Mengele the creator of the Jewish people, did he express his love to them before experimenting with them, did he give them resources that would help them endure their suffering, and did he restore their health and give them even greater blessings afterward, as God did with Job? No. Mengele didn't have the authority of God, the foreknowledge of God, the good intentions that the book of Job assumes God had, etc.”

I’m saying that God acted in the story of Job just like Mengele did. They both had the power to do what they wanted to with the people involved. And neither one of them acting in a kind matter. Neither one of them cared about those they were experimenting on. Just because God was supposedly Job’s creator doesn’t give him the moral right to do what he did to Job, his wife, his children, his servants and his animals “without any reason.” It just makes God more powerful than Job, just like Mengele had more power over his victims.

Steve again, “If the Christian God was modeled after ancient kings, and those kings were so unconcerned with love, then why do we find "God is love" and similar comments, as well as many passages about loving God, in both the Old and New Testaments? How many ancient kings took on the form of their people, lived among them, and suffered and died for their sins, to reconcile them to himself?”

I’m just commenting on the book of Job. Looking at that book what do we find? We find a God who will inflict a great amount of pain and suffering to win a bet he supposedly knew in advance the outcome. Now if other books in the Bible (including the NT) state that God is love, that’s fine. But whatever it means for this God to love us must include what he did to Job. And in Job we find a God who is willing to experiment upon an captive person is devestating ways to win a bet. Either this is love, or there is a contradiction between Job and the other books in the Bible that state otherwise. But I find no love of God for Job, his wife, his children, his servants or his animals in the book of Job.

Why Trust God?

Someone recently referred me to the book of Job and told me: I do not know God's plan, but I trust him. Let me comment. In the first place, it's obvious to any thinking person that Job is Hebraic poetry which was never meant to portray historical conversations between God, Job and Satan (remember, it was poetry! Do YOU know anyone who speaks extemporaneously in Hebraic parallelistic poetic rhymes?).

In this story Job was put to a test. His whole family suffered with him. And why? So that an all knowing God (and/or one who determines all events) could win a contest with an "accuser" (lit. heavenly prosecutor who was overzealous in doing his job as a fully credentialed member of the heavenly court). The fact is, "satan" shouldn't have been given the time of day.

Job was experimented on by a God who knew the end result to win a bet, a contest. Why? There's no indication that God really loved Job or his family. To test this, just ask yourself if you would allow "satan" to do what he did here to a loved one of YOURS, especially if you knew the outcome. There's no reason to do so. Life throws so many real tests at us we don't have to fabricate them. God shouldn't have allowed it, if he loved Job and his family.

Job was never asked beforehand whether or not he wished to participate, and neither was his family, most all of whom died. We punish people who experiment on others without prior consent, even if those we experiment on are prisoners. Josef Mengele is widely hailed as a monster for doing just that to Holocaust victims. But God gets a free ride here. Why? Because he's bigger than us....that's why. Not because he's better than us. He's a monster....a bully....a king who will do with his subjects as he sees fit. This kingship model comes directly from ancient views of kings who did whatever they wanted to with their subjects. But kings were feared in the ancient world...they were not usually loved. All they were concerned with was peace in their kingdoms. They were not generally concerned if their subjects loved them, since subjects could be put down. Kings were only afraid, or fearful, if there was potential for an uprising or an assassination, hence the Bible depicts God as fearful too.

And this kingship model was written by ancients to describe the God that Christians worship. Christians have been tricked into loving such a king because they believe this God-king, can do anything he wants to do, call it good, and then demand that his subjects worship him. But I say no. This God is merely bigger than us, if he exists, and that's all. He's the biggest boy on the block. He can push us around, cause us to suffer, and punish us all he wants to. But I will not be tricked into loving and/or worshipping this bully. If he exists, the best I can do is to fear him. But love him? I cannot do that.

How the NT Writers Used the OT

I will not attempt to provide an in depth analysis here, but one of the major things claimed by the New Testament in support of Jesus’ life and mission is that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (Luke 24:26-27; Acts 3:17-24). I believe early Christian preachers simply went into the Old Testament looking for verses that would support their view of Jesus. They took these Old Testament verses out of context and applied them to Jesus in order to support their views of his life and mission. None of the them proves much of anything significant with regard to Jesus' nature or mission.

Many of the claimed prophecies came from the book of Psalms. But the Psalms are simply devotional prayers. Among other things in the Psalms we find prayers for help in distress, for forgiveness, and wisdom, and so on. They declare praise to God, and they express hope that their enemies will be defeated. There is nothing about them, when reading them devotionally, that indicates they are predicting anything at all! But the New Testament writers quoted from several of them and claimed they predicted several things in the life, death and resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus (i.e., Psalms 2, 16, 22, 40, 69, 110, and 118).

Psalms 2 expresses hope for the Messiah, the anointed one. But any Jew writing about his hope for a future Messiah could have said these same hopeful things. A hope is not a prediction. Besides, Psalms 2 and 110 were most likely to be read at the coronation of Jewish kings. Psalms 110:1 reads: “The Lord says to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for you feet.” The New Testament writers make a big deal out of the fact that David wrote this Psalm in which he calls someone else “lord.” This supposedly refers to David’s future Messianic son, Jesus--his divine nature and mission. But it’s fairly obvious that if David wrote this Psalm he did it on the coronation of his son Solomon, whom he subsequently called, "lord." He did this because of Solomon’s new status, which placed him as a ruler even above the aged David himself. The Jews of that time would not have understood it any other way.

The other Psalms do not predict anything at all. They are prayers to be interpreted within the range of the writer’s experiences alone. Any extrapolation of them to Jesus is reading Jesus into the text, and not justified by the text itself.

It is more probable that the New Testament writers were influenced in the construction of their stories about Jesus by making his life fit some of these details. That may also explain Luke’s concoction of a census in order to get Mary to Bethlehem so that Jesus could be born there, according to “prophecy” (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:6).

Matthew even constructs a small detail based upon a misunderstanding of prophecy. Matthew 21:2 has Jesus requesting both a donkey and also a colt to ride into Jerusalem on, based upon a false understanding of Zechariah 9:9: “Rejoice…your king comes to you…gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” Zechariah’s prophecy is an example of Hebraic parallelism in which the second line retells the point of the first line. There is only one animal in Zechariah, but Matthew thinks he means there is a donkey and also a colt, so he wrote his story based upon this misunderstanding in order to fit prophecy! [Mark (11:1) and Luke (19:30) both say it was a “colt.” John (12:14-15) says it was a “donkey”, and then quoted Zechariah 9:9 as saying: “your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.”

How Matthew’s gospel uses the Old Testament is a case in point for us. How he uses Isaiah 7:14 to predict the supposed virgin birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:23), is simply fraudulent. In Matthew 1:20-23 the author claims that Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus’ virgin birth: “Immanuel with us.” The context for the prophecy in Isaiah tells us that before any “young woman” (not virgin) shall conceive and bear a son who grows to maturity that Syria, the northern kingdom of Israel, along with the southern Israelite kingdom of Ahaz would all lie devastated. The prophecy in the original Hebrew of Isaiah says nothing whatsoever about a virginal conception. And it says nothing about a messiah, either. God will indeed be with Ahaz, but not in salvation, but in judgment.

Let’s just look at three more from Matthew. What exactly does the word “fulfill” mean in Matthew 2:14-15: “Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son.’” According to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures, “This is a reference to Hosea 11:1, which does not seem to be a prophecy in the sense of a prediction. Hosea was writing of God’s calling Israel out of Egypt into the Exodus. Matthew, however, gave new understanding to these words. Matthew viewed this experience as Messiah being identified with the nation.” According to J. Gnilka, "The total disassociation of that the quotation from its context is completely at odds with our own exegetical preferences." [in Das Matthausevangelium I Kommentar zu Kap 1.1 – 13.58 (HTKNT, 1.1; Freiburg: Herder, 1986), p. 55]. According to U. Luz, "Matthew naturally understands his quotation from Hosea as prophetic; he did not share the insight, common since Zwingli... and Calvin... that his interpretation does not correspond to the original meaning." [Das Evangelium nach Matthaus I Mt 1-7, p. 129].

When Herod the king ordered all boys two years old and younger in Bethlehem to be killed, Matthew sees this as a fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15. Jeremiah is mourning for those who will be cast into Babylonian captivity. According to R. Schnackenburg, "it seems far-fetched to quote this text as fulfillment of prophecy." [Das Mathausevangelium 1.1 – 16.20 (Die Neue Echter Bibel, 1.1; Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1985), p. 27].

Look at Matthew 2:22-23: “Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” Again, according to the conservative The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures, “The words ‘He will be called a Nazarene,’ were not directly spoken by any Old Testament prophet, though several prophecies come close to this expression. Isaiah said the Messiah would be “from [Jesse’s] roots” like “a Branch” (Isaiah 11:1). “Branch” is the Hebrew word nezer, which has consonants like those in the word “Nazarene” and which carry the idea of having an insignificant beginning.”

Contextually Matthew’s use of Scripture is an apologetic to the Jews. Therefore, in some way his contemporaries must have seen such a use of Scripture as evidence of the nature or mission of Jesus. The question we must ask is how does his interpretation confirm these facts? What is the point of the quotations? What does it add to Matthew’s narrative? What does it confirm about Jesus? Contextually there is simply no way on grammatical-historical lines that Hosea 11:1 could be used as evidence of the nature or mission of Jesus in Matthew 2:15. It just isn’t there. Matthew uses the verse so loosely that it would show evidence of nothing at all to us today were we the ones weighing the claims of another Messiah. It teaches us nothing at all about the Messiah that Matthew hasn’t already told us. We today would be extremely puzzled by Matthew’s interpretation of it.

And Matthew’s claim that Jesus is a “Nazarene” isn’t specifically quoted from any OT source, and even if the Messiah was to be a “branch” from David, that could only mean to the OT reader that he would be from David’s blood line, not that he would live in Nazareth!

Our methods for discerning exactness and correctness have changed. If we were to judge the NT writers by our standards of hermeneutics today they wouldn’t measure up. Another way to put this is that if we would employ the same methods in scholarly studies today as they did, we would be laughed at by our contemporaries—just try it and see!

What was Matthew’s intention? Matthew’s gospel reads as if he was making a case for Jesus as the Christ. Dunn stated in The Living Word (Fortress Press, 1987) that Matthew’s use of the sayings of Jesus is similar to the way he used the O.T. in that: “the texts used were often significantly different in sense from the original. It was evidently quite an acceptable procedure in Matthew’s time to incorporate the interpretation into the saying itself by modifying the form of the saying.” (pp. 115-122). Today we think this way of interpreting the O.T. is wrong. And yet we are supposed to believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of OT prophecy? Hardly!

No Magic Bullets!

I don't know how many emails I get each month from newly made atheists and agnostics, asking me for "ammo" to defeat an apologist's claim, to win an argument, or to cause someone to once and for all lose faith in Christianity. Here's how it ends up working; They get from me my views on a position and then naively assume that because I am an ex-minister, my answers will somehow make an atheist out of any theist who hears them. When this person's opponent has a reply for the objection I supplied them with, they are back again for another answer, unwilling to do their own research and somewhat perplexed that any other answers would be required. It is at this point that I explain to them that theists will always have some retort to offer up, as will the ardent believers of every cult or philosophical belief system. Newbies to the search for truth tend to want quick, simple, booming answers and tend to want to test the waters and see how formidable they are in debates. I consider both of these characteristics ridiculously juvenile.

Inquirers like these are looking for a "magic bullet" sort of answer, a "one shot deal", one they think is so indisputable that when confronted with it, a Christian or god believer will just melt and say, "OK, you got me. I will now renounce my faith and am an atheist from this day forward." This just doesn't happen.

Would that all who will be emailing me for answers with this mentality would read this: There are NO magic bullets! There is no one answer that totally destroys a belief system or answers a point that all will see and be receptive to anymore than there is one wrestling maneuver that will counter all kinds of attacks all of the time from all types of opponents. It is foolish to expect so. There will always be points, counterpoints, and counter-counterpoints, ad nausium. Anyone in any belief system can always put their spin on something and make a claim make sense no matter what the issue. If someone looks diligently enough for answers to the hard questions that trouble their belief system, they will find them. The Mormon finds "evidence" of Jesus having come to the Americas and witnessing to Native Americans regarding himself. The literal creationist finds "evidence" that the earth is 6,000 years old. Even the geocentrists and flat-earthers (rare as these may be) manage to come up with clever ways to respond to even the most sensible debaters who represent true science. Tons of information and misinformation is out there in a tremendous sea, waiting to be preferentially cyphened out by an individual. Psychology is involved in adopting the positions we hold and the lifepaths we choose to walk, factors beyond simple deductive and inductive reasoning. Humans have ways of making even the simplest of things complicated. The search for truth is never a simple one unless you are a gorilla...

1. Here are bananas.
2. I like bananas.
~ Therefore, I will eat them!

Nope! We humans just don't get off that easy! Our 3 pound brains bring us lots of heavy considerations, and there's no way to escape them and live.

The only way to get to the bottom of an issue and "prove" a conclusion is by being able to draw a demonstrable conclusion from an assortment of facts, and this usually requires a good level of knowledge. But this still does not guarantee everyone will accept it, and it shouldn't have to. Instead of getting discouraged at the fact that the hallway of truth is so dimly lit, at times making us uncertain of our own conclusions or whether we can really "know" anything, we ought to realize that the discovery of truth is first a deeply personal thing, then a collective thing. People will not automatically change their views, but one at a time, those individuals will change and come to form a new consensus.

So while it may say a lot to convince someone who does not agree with you, by sidestepping their objections and belief barriers, and leading them down the logical path to clarity of thought, this rarely, if ever, happens. Human nature always gets in the way. A paradigm shift is an arduous process. It takes time and reflection to occur if it ever does, and when it happens, no one ends up being able to take home the bragging rights for it's accomplishment. I have learned through the years to rejoice in the fact that the discovery of truth is of such a personal nature. Indeed, this is the biggest benefit of being able to call myself a freethinker: I don't have to agree with anyone! In the search for answers to the meaning of life, I came to find myself and contentment in the conclusions I draw. This means I am not terribly eager to fall on my face to hear what the "big guns" say about this or that subject. I am not aching to believe something just because someone smart or well known in a field believes it. I am only eager to believe something that rings of truth in my mind, as it "clicks" along the way of inquiry. For most of us, the seed of investigation can only be planted, and in time, may grow into the tree of knowledge that becomes our new world view. The search for truth is a journey, and journeys take time. Sensibility dictates that I must neither expect, nor look for magic bullets to complete the journey for anyone. There are no magic bullets!

(JH)

Confused?

Congratulations to Dagoods for the following post of the week at Atheist Blogs Aggregated!

I was once involved in a frantic litigation with numerous attorneys, including claims, and cross-claims and counter-claims of a variety of sorts. Due to the urgency of the matter, it seemed we were in court almost every day on some new emergency problem or petition. At one of yet another hearing, a fellow counselor mentioned how the case was a chaotic mess.

An older, more veteran attorney nodded, and said in a solemn voice, “Ahhh. But where there is chaos, there is profit.”

I have since reflected on how true that is. When people hear of a “claimed” shortage, whether it is gasoline, or flu shots, or even Cabbage Patch Dolls, a sort of chaotic panic ensues in which retailers may charge more, and items they could not move off their shelves a week ago, they cannot keep in stock.

If things are stable and calm, people have time to contemplate and compare, becoming conservative consumers. If chaotic and confused, people react and respond, rather than reflect and review.

So why would God want confusion? Why would God want various forms of Christianity to spring forward almost immediately, causing confusion and strife? What benefit is there, when Jesus could have cleared this up so easily with but a few words?

Believe it or not, I got to thinking about this when reviewing the Bible’s position on polygamy. A discussion was on-going, and as I reviewed both positions, it struck me—“How simple this would have been if Jesus had cleared it up with a single sentence of ‘God once allowed you to have more than one wife, but now desires one man to marry one woman.’” In fact, this would also go a long way toward the Christian battle-cry for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as “one man, one woman (at a time).”

As I was thinking on this, I began to reflect on all the other, brief statements Jesus could have made to clear up much confusion:

“Abortion is immoral.”
“Baptize by full dipping, and no kids.”
”Sola Scriptura.”
“God pre-selects some for Heaven, some for Hell.”
“Oh, and Hell is a terrible place with lots of fire.”

Instead what do we see in the development of Christianity?

Jesus is so unclear about food becoming unclean (Mark 7:14-23 ) that he has to tell Peter again in a vision. (Acts. 10:15) Even then, the issue of food (clean or unclean) offered to idols remains a problem. (I Cor. 8:10) Or vegetarians. (Rom. 14:2)

Within the very decades of Jesus’ death, the Christian mandate regarding circumcision raged on. Did new converts need to be circumcised? (Acts 15:24, 16:3, Rom. 2:25, Gal. 2:3)

In the letters of Paul, we see him attempting to clear up confusion in the areas of marriage (1 Cor. 7, Rom. 7:3), resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15:12), the Eucharist (1 Cor. 12:30), spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:1) and even salvation through grace. (Rom. 5:15017) In fact, some were even confusing Apollo with Paul with Cephas with Christ! (1 Cor. 1:12)

Historically, we begin to see the church schism and fragment almost immediately. We have the Jerusalem church as compared to the Galilean Church. Judaizers vs. Gentile Missionaries. The Johannine school as compared to the Snynoptic Gospels. Gnostics and Marcion. We eventually have docetic and Arianism.

And yes, even arguments over polygamy!

As time has progressed, more schisms and fractures and confusion have continued. It has not become less, but rather has become more. We have Charismatic Catholics and Arminian Baptists. And within each group, more groups fracture off with their various peccadilloes, over Baptism, or election, or lifting hands, or covering heads, or singing songs, or offerings, or blood transfusions, or homosexuality, or divorce, or drinking or mixed bathing, or Robert’s Rules of Order or just about any possible concoction one can dream up.

And the Christian God saw this confusion develop, and did nothing to stop it. At the Tower of Babel, YHWH confused the languages. At the cross, Jesus confused the religions. Apparently there is something about unity that God abhors. He did, after all, create calamity (Isa. 45:7) why not use it?

Many Christians, reading this, may be thinking to themselves, “But all those other beliefs are wrong. I hold the true belief. It is the human involvement that has caused the confusion, making the others lose the truth I hold.”

First of all, I would ask that you at least recognize that there ARE other beliefs, also stemming from the same original core. I don’t have to ask very hard, your words and actions proclaim that you recognize these other beliefs.

I read Christian forums and blogs. I see the fights. In fact, I tend to find Christians fight with other Christian beliefs more vehemently and more venomously than they do with atheists! We are considered the enemy, but a “wrong belief” is considered a traitor. An enemy is simply doing their job, but a traitor is a treasonous apostate, and should be handled with less respect than any other.

Secondly, I would ask that you recognize that you desire those other beliefs to conform (even partially) to your own. You do not desire this confusion. You would prefer conformity. Again, your words and actions proclaim that you desire this, as evidenced by the intensive arguing in support of your position.

You know what we all find funny? In a forum, seeing a poster proclaim “I don’t have time to respond to this, but….” And they respond. And again, “I REALLY don’t have time, but…” and respond again and again and again. After a bit, I wish they would stop wasting time, constantly telling me they don’t have time to write they don’t have time!

Look, if you weren’t interested, you wouldn’t be posting all the time about how other beliefs are incorrect. You wouldn’t be researching it. You wouldn’t be here. Your actions belay your words. You would like the confusion to end.

Now, if you don’t want this confusion, why does God?

I see four possible solutions (but there could always be more):

1. God doesn’t care.
2. God actively needs this confusion.
3. God does not want it, but is unable to stop it.
4. There is no God involved at all.

God may not care, because it is a deistic God, or it is the Christian God, but this is not an area in which He has concern. It would be surprising, but perhaps there is a Christian that takes this view. If so, I would presume the Christian does not care if there is confusion, either. If God doesn’t care, why should they?

Although that raises a problem with why God would get involved at all. If God doesn’t care whether this confusion reigns, then what would be the basis of Jesus appearing at all? If His death, for some reason, was necessary, that could have happened with no communication at all. No ministry. No Sermons. No Parables. No Epistles. No Gospels.

To say God doesn’t care about the resulting confusion, but cares enough to communicate some creates a difficult methodology. Why did Jesus talk about foods being clean or unclean if he doesn’t care? Apparently He cared about that. So much he said it twice! Yet he doesn’t “care” under this methodology to make a mention about abortion.

I would think that a Christian would therefore be left in the position of following a God that cares for having a slice of bacon with breakfast, and doesn’t care about many of the issues Christians face now—such as homosexuality, abortion, or even election and salvation.

If God needs this confusion, then why would a Christian ever debate against it? Or is part of the need to have the debate itself? Are we just some large cock-fight for God in which he watches us spin and fight and fret, and even kill over the confusion, and he has some “need” to have this happen?

Of course, the question I will ask is “Why? Why does God need this confusion?” To which we receive the perpetual reply, “We don’t know, except if it happens, then God must need it.” But then, we could say that about everything that happens, whether we desire it or not.

God must need Tsunamis. God must need atheists. God must need fundamentalists that kill in His name. (And NO, that is NOT limited to Muslims.) And equally, God must also need thousands of different offshoots and sects arising out of Christianity for another “unknown purpose.”

If God needs confusion, then there is nothing humanity can do about it, eh? Wonder why the ingrained sense of reducing confusion, then? Is that part of the fall? We became evil AND orderly?

Or perhaps God does not want confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) yet is unable to stop it. This creates a very interesting God, indeed! Even, as humans, we can see how to at least reduce confusion. We do it all the time—communicate effectively. If God did not want confusion between the Arminian and the Calvinist over the issue of election, lay out the concept in simple terms. If God did not want the Great schism, explain whether church doctrines have authority alongside scripture.

Anyone who has ever debated anything regarding Christianity has bemoaned the lack of a simple verse explaining God’s position. The trinity comes readily to mind. And yes, I know that to YOU it is clear. How do you resolve those billions of other folks that it is not? Did God desire their confusion?

The Christian is left with the unenviable position of a God that either desires confusion, or lacks the ability to do anything about it. The classic Epicurean problem in the sense of confusion, instead of evil.

Notice the intriguing part of the first three solutions. We are just as well-off acting as if there is no God, if these are true. If God doesn’t care, why should we? If God wants confusion, we should as well. No more Godlike mandate to reduce confusion and enlighten our fellow humans. If even a God cannot stop confusion, how can we?

In each of these scenarios, we may as well not have a God at all.

There is the fourth possibility, though.

Just like my court case, getting a group of humans together, with different motivations, different purposes, and different goals, ends up in chaos. Confusion. While some sense can be honed down, and directed, simply due to the fact that humans are different will always result in some confusion.

Without a God, it is not only unsurprisingly, but it is natural that confusion would come about. The various books of the Bible were put together by a variety of human authors, each with differing concepts about God. Rather than struggle with attempting to align the Synoptics, or worse, aligning the Synoptics with John, we can relax in the idea that these were written by separate humans, and by virtue of their dissimilarities, will provide dissimilar ideas. Only when cohesiveness is sought does confusion step in.

If God wanted to stop the confusion, he could have. Perhaps, though, he felt where there was chaos, there was profit. I just don’t see any.

Comments on Craig's First Rebuttal

Written by John W. Loftus.


Here I'm going to offer some brief comments on Craig's main argument against Ehrman, found in Craig's first rebuttal linked here.

Against Ehrman he uses the mathematical formula of Bayes's theorem. But what's left out of any equation of this type (as well as Swinburne’s conclusion where he thinks it’s 97% probable Jesus arose from the dead) is that the opponent can object to the values set by the one using the argument.

Here’s Craig (in blue throughout):
And now we’re ready to see precisely where Dr. Ehrman’s error lies. So in the grand tradition of Hume’s Abject Failure, I give you: Ehrman’s Egregious Error.

This is cute and is merely a rhetoric device to label what it is your opponent purportedly does. The mere labeling of this supposed error has no substance to it.

Craig:
He says, “Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably occurred.”

This appears to be a historian’s version of what is known in scientific circles as methodological naturalism, which assumes that for everything we experience there is a natural cause. We who live in the modern world operate on this assumption ourselves everyday. This assumption is the foundation of modernity. It is what defines us as modern people. In previous centuries we either praised God for the good things that happened to us, or we wondered why he was angry when bad things happened in our lives. But by scientifically investigating into the forces of nature we can better run our own lives, and we know how to make life easier for ourselves, with fewer diseases.

In scientific fields methodological naturalism is a way to gain the truth about nature, and it has astounding results. Some scientists go so far as to claim that since it works, then nature must be ultimate, but that doesn’t follow, for the later conclusion is beyond the scope of science; it is a metaphysical claim. [For discussions about this see “Methodological Naturalism?” by Alvin Plantinga, which can be found at: www.arn.org, “Justifying Methodological Naturalism” by Michael Martin, and “Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural,” by Mark I Vuletic, to be found at www.infidels.org/library].

Still, if such an assumption has had so many successes in science, then why not apply that method to history as well? And modern historians have done just that. When looking into the past they assume a natural explanation for every historical event. They are taught to be critical of the past, as we’ve just mentioned. As historians they must. That is the standard for what they do as historians, to be skeptical of the past record, especially claims of the miraculous.

According to I. Howard Marshall in I Believe in the Historical Jesus (Eerdmans, 1977) “many historians—the great majority in fact—would say that miracles fall outside their orbit as historians. For to accept the miraculous as a possibility in history is to admit an irrational element which cannot be included under the ordinary laws of history. The result is that the historian believes himself justified in writing a ‘history’ of Jesus in which the miraculous and supernatural do not appear in historical statements. The ‘historical’ Jesus is an ordinary man. To some historians he is that and no more. To others, however, the possibility is open that he was more than an ordinary man—but this possibility lies beyond the reach of historical study as such.” (p. 59).

Craig:
In other words, in calculating the probability of Jesus’ resurrection, the only factor he considers is the intrinsic probability of the resurrection alone [Pr(R/B)]. He just ignores all of the other factors. And that’s just mathematically fallacious. The probability of the resurrection could still be very high even though the Pr(R/B) alone is terribly low. Specifically, Dr. Ehrman just ignores the crucial factors of the probability of the naturalistic alternatives to the resurrection.

Notice the words highlighted? This too is rhetoric. Ehrman does not judge his case against the resurrection in a vacuum. No one does. There are other factors that play into anyone’s assessment of the resurrection. And there is no mathematical fallacy here either. Ehrman just assigns different values to background factors than Craig.

But what value should we place on the intrinsic probability of the resurrection, that is, background factors? That’s the question. Sometimes our background factors against believing in miracles control what we believe so strongly that it would require evidence so complete and overwhelming that one is hard pressed to see that any event, especially in the past, can overcome them. It's not terribly unlike how much evidence it would take to overcome your belief that the Holocaust occurred despite the naysayers, except that with the resurrection we're dealing with a purportedly supernaturally caused event. Likewise, how much evidence would it take to overcome your belief that aliens have not abducted people? What background factors are important here are even hard to specify.

Listen to Gotthold Lessing here: “Miracles, which I see with my own eyes, and which I have opportunity to verify for myself, are one thing; miracles, of which I know only from history that others say they have seen them and verified them, are another.” “But…I live in the 18th century, in which miracles no longer happen. The problem is that reports of miracles are not miracles….[they] have to work through a medium which takes away all their force.” “Or is it invariably the case, that what I read in reputable historians is just as certain for me as what I myself experience?”

Lessing, just like G.W. Leibniz before him, distinguished between the contingent truths of history and the necessary truths of reason and wrote: Since “no historical truth can be demonstrated, then nothing can be demonstrated by means of historical truths.” That is, “the accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason.”

He continued: “We all believe that an Alexander lived who in a short time conquered almost all Asia. But who, on the basis of this belief, would risk anything of great permanent worth, the loss of which would be irreparable? Who, in consequence of this belief, would forswear forever all knowledge that conflicted with this belief? Certainly not I. But it might still be possible that the story was founded on a mere poem of Choerilus just as the ten year siege of Troy depends on no better authority than Homer’s poetry.”

Someone might object that miracles like the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, are “more than historically certain,” because these things are told to us by “inspired historians who cannot make a mistake.” But Lessing counters that whether or not we have inspired historians is itself a historical claim, and only as certain as history allows. This, then, “is the ugly broad ditch which I cannot get across, however often and however earnestly I have tried to make the leap.” “Since the truth of these miracles has completely ceased to be demonstrable by miracles still happening now, since they are no more than reports of miracles, I deny that they should bind me in the least to a faith in the other teachings of Christ.” (“On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power,” [Lessing’s Theological Writings, (Stanford University Press, 1956, pp. 51-55)].

Back to Craig;
In order to explain that the resurrection is improbable, he needs not only to tear down all the evidence for the resurrection, but he needs to erect a positive case of his own in favor of some naturalistic alternatives.

Okay, so we first have the intrinsic probability of the resurrection, and then we have the evidence. The intrinsic probability for Ehrman is extremely low. When it comes to the evidence, Craig suggests he needs to criticize arguments for the resurrection and at the same time present an alternative theory to explain the present evidence. But if the intrinsic probability of a miracle is close to zero, then I see no reason why Ehrman should have to present an alternative theory of what happened at all. Any theory he might present, even if implausible as he said, would have a greater degree of probability than a resurrection from the dead, given Ehrman's background knowledge,

Craig:
But that’s not all. Dr. Ehrman just assumes that the probability of the resurrection on our background knowledge [Pr(R/B)] is very low. But here, I think, he’s confused. What, after all, is the resurrection hypothesis? It’s the hypothesis that Jesus rose supernaturally from the dead. It is not the hypothesis that Jesus rose naturally from the dead. That Jesus rose naturally from the dead is fantastically improbable. But I see no reason whatsoever to think that it is improbable that God raised Jesus from the dead.

In order to show that that hypothesis is improbable, you’d have to show that God’s existence is improbable. But Dr. Ehrman says that the historian cannot say anything about God. Therefore, he cannot say that God’s existence is improbable. But if he can’t say that, neither can he say that the resurrection of Jesus is improbable. So Dr. Ehrman’s position is literally self-refuting.

In Ehrman’s defence, he says that a historian cannot say that the resurrection is probable, not that a theologian must do so. But if a theologian concludes Jesus arose, it isn’t based upon the historical evidence. Therefore, Craig’s background knowledge controls what he believes too, and the reason Craig concludes the resurrection occurred is not because of the historical evidence, but because he’s a believing theologian who adopted his faith when he was only 16 years old. [On this click on "John's Posts" in the sidebar and read what I wrote about The Outsider Test].

Besides, Ehrman doesn't have to show that the existence of just any God is improbable. All Ehrman has to do is to show that the existence of the Christian God is improbable. And this would be a case that is easier to make, because in order to make it against Craig all Ehrman would have to do is what we do here at DC on a daily basis with what the Bible says about this God in the Bible. And if the Bible debunks itself, and the Bible tells us about the resurrection of Jesus, then we have an additional reason not to trust what the Bible says about the resurrection.

Craig;
But it gets even worse. There’s another version of Dr. Ehrman’s objection which is even more obviously fallacious than Ehrman’s Egregious Error. I call it “Bart’s Blunder.”

Rhetoric. He’s good at it.

Craig:
Here it is: “Since historians can establish only what probably happened in the past, they cannot show that miracles happened, since this would involve a contradiction—that the most improbable event is the most probable.”

In truth, there’s no contradiction here at all because we’re talking about two different probabilities: the probability of the resurrection on the background knowledge and the evidence [Pr(R/B&E)] versus the probability of the resurrection on the background knowledge alone [Pr(R/B)]. It’s not at all surprising that the first may be very high and the second might be very low. There’s no contradiction at all. In sum, Dr. Ehrman’s fundamental argument against the resurrection hypothesis is demonstrably fallacious.

Ehrman is speaking as a historian from the perspective of methodological naturalism. Ehrman is merely saying that as a historian he cannot step outside what is improbable from the historian’s perspective. In one sense, both Craig and Ehrman agree. They both admit that the intrinsic probability of the resurrection is very low. Because of his studies of the Biblical documents and ancient texts Ehrman considers this intrinsic probability to be extremely low to the point of zero. Ehrman claims that historical evidence cannot lead a historian to believe, and yet even Craig admits that it’s not just evidence, but also background factors which help someone decide that it’s probably true that Jesus arose from the grave. However, these additional background factors, such as the belief in God, are outside the historical evidence too, and hence both of them admit that historical evidence will not in and of itself lead someone to conclude that Jesus arose from the dead.

Dr. Craig vs Dr. Ehrman on the Resurrection of Jesus

Over at Victor Repert's Blog there has been quite a discussion about the release of the transcript of the debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman on the historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. It's now been released and you can read it here.

It sure seems to me like Craig is still the master debater. I really liked Ehrman's opening statement, but I think Craig forced him to "play his game" rather than develop his own strategy. While I agree with Ehrman, it just seems to me that in order to debate the resurrection someone needs to spend so much time giving the audience a foundation to one's argument that he can't effectively argue against the resurrection in a 2 hour debate, especially against Craig, who does it all of the time.

I've commented on Craig's first rebuttal here.

Bible Games: The Untold Stories

Today I was at Best Buy perusing all the cool new stuff. I'm only 24 and I can already tell that technology is moving faster than me. I was in the XBOX game aisle when I found, stashed among "Grand Theft Auto" and "Call of Duty 2," a game called "Bible Games."

It's kind of a kids game where you get to be a character from the Bible. For example, you can help Noah find all the animals, Moses part the Red Sea, and help Daniel get away from all those pesky lions. It all sounds quite amusing for a Christian kid. I remember having a similar game when I was young for that stone age piece of equipment called Nintendo.

I was thinking about how all those games have the same old stories. What if there was a really unique biblical adventure with some of the lesser known stuff--maybe one for the teenagers? Before I knew it I was thinking up ideas for a riveting sequel to "Bible Games" called "Bible Games: The Untold Stories." Here's some ideas:

You're an Israelite on a quest to kill all the Midianites except the virgins, which you have sex with for points. Based on Numbers 31.

Here's another game idea: You're a soldier of Israel and you have to kill every single living human in Canaan. Extra points for children. You lose points if they get away. Based on Joshua 10.

How about You're commissioned by God to stop the rise of the "Nephillim" by killing all the evil, fallen angels before they interbreed with human women. Based on Genesis 6.

Ok, one more: Bonus Round: You're Joshua and you have just found that Achan has taken some stuff from Jericho. It's your job to stone Achan, his family, and his animals to death as fast as you can. Based on Joshua 7.

In all seriousness, the reason I say that is because I feel many Christians are mis-representing the Bible and its God. It's not that Christians will deny that the Bible says a lot of strange and hard-to-deal-with stuff, but that it's just not ever talked about.

It's Bible games like the one for X-BOX that shows me even more that while most Christians, in theory, say the whole Bible is God's inspired word, they live and teach like only certain parts are worth anyone's time.

I spent near every Sunday and Wednesday in church for 24 years. I have heard thousands of biblical teachings, but not once have I ever heard a teaching on any "strange" passages of the Bible. Most of the Christians I know don't have a clue the Bible teaches that sacrificial blood is God's food or any of the other things like that.

I had a professor at Bible College who used to say to me, "many people believe the Bible because they don't know what it says." I shout a loud "AMEN!" to that one. What disservice pastors and parents are doing to people by only teaching parts of the Bible that are safe.

"The Bible Game" is a classic example of every Sunday school class I ever had up through high school--we talk about how wonderful it is that God gave the Israelites victory, but we conveniently forget they had victory at the great expense of thousands, if not millions, of innocent lives who were simply minding their own business. We talked about how he saved the Israelite firstborn from his own angel of death but forget that he killed a lot more than he probably saved--all over a bloody doorpost. Why would YHVH have to kill all the first born of Egypt? Couldn't he have simply taken Pharaoh's child to get the point across?

I spent my entire childhood and teenage years in Sunday School. It was a crushing thing when I grew older, and read the Bible for myself, only to find the God I grew to know and love was only part of the God of the Bible--the nicer-more-politically-correct part.

Christian parents out there would do well to teach their sons and daughters the whole Bible. Or are you afraid of what your children will find out? Hmm, maybe on second thought, you might be better off just exposing them to things like "Bible Games" and taking them to VBS this summer--that will probably give you more desirable results.

The Steam Locomotive As Revealed in the Bible, OR, A Letter to Matthew, Chiefly on Inerrancy, Fundamentalism, Moderate X-ianity & J. P. Holding-anity

Dear Matthew, I wanted to tell you how much I agreed with your comments on the way inerrantists often don’t have any primary criteria except their inerrancy to lead them in creating imaginative solutions to a problem they themselves have created, i.e., the problem of how to make the Bible (as close to every jot and tittle of it as possible) appear inerrant, or make inerrant-seeming sense.

Inerrantists focus so solely on harmonizing away all "apparent difficulties/contradictions" that they rarely recognize the self-deception involved in creating their myriads of “apparent harmonizations” solely out of their own imaginations, i.e., apparent harmonizations that have nothing to do with any reliable universal criteria by which they can tell for sure whether the initial contradiction was indeed real or apparent.

Neither does the “doctrine of inerrancy” spare inerrantists from disagreeing with inerrantists over what the Bible “really says” concerning this or that verse or subject in Genesis, or Revelation, or in the books between them.

As stated at his website, J. P. Holding “believe[s] that [all of] the original manuscripts of the Bible were produced inerrant.” But since they have all been lost in the sands of time (how convenient), I guess we cannot check.

Moreover, each “book” of the Bible might not have even been produced as a whole “book” all at once, but undergone possible oral additions and subtractions of words, chapters, phrases, over time, as well as written additions and subtractions of words, chapters, phrases, over time, before their “production” was “complete.” Speaking of which, the book of “Daniel” in the Bible begins with the first story being told in Hebrew; then the book switches to another language, Aramaic, then after a few chapters switches back to Hebrew (while three sections are preserved only in Greek and are considered merely apocryphal by Protestant Christians and Jews, but instead considered deuterocanonical by Catholic and Orthodox Christians)!

Which raises the further question of who is to say when something is “complete” or not, be it a book or the entire Bible? And how do you know such people are inerrant in making such a declaration of “completeness?”

Which brings us to fundamentalism…

Characteristic of all fundamentalism is that it has found absolute certainty the certainty of class warfare, the certainty of science, or the literal certainty of the Bible--a certainty of the person who has finally found a solid rock to stand upon which, unlike other rocks, is “solid all the way down.” Fundamentalism, however, is a terminal form of human consciousness in which development is stopped, eliminating the uncertainty and risk that real growth entails. [Heinz Pagels]

Which calls to mind Mark Twain’s gentle poke: “We have infinite trouble in solving man-made mysteries; it is only when we set out to discover the secret of God that our difficulties disappear.”

Another characteristic, not of fundamentalism, but of fundamentalists is their intellectual modesty, their almost saintly humility. Nietzsche said once that we are all greater artists than we realize, but fundamentalists are too timid to think of themselves as great artists. They take no credit for what they have invented; they assume they have no part in the creation and maintenance of the Idols they worship. Like the paranoid-very much like the paranoid, in fact they devise baroque and ingenious Systems, and define them as “Given.” They then carefully edit all impressions to conform to the System. There is no vanity, no vanity at all, in people who are so intensely creative and so unwilling to recognize their own cleverness. [Robert Anton Wilson]

One clever Protestant fundamentalist Christian, Gleason Archer, has created a 480-page Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties in which he ingeniously explains away a host of “apparent” contradictions found in the Bible. Critics have pointed out that Archer’s single volume “encyclopedia” is far too short. What he needs to do is produce an enormous set of encyclopedias dealing with “Bible difficulties,” along with a yearly supplemental volume to explain away the latest problems raised by textual and archeological research.

There are further “difficulties” that arise from the mere acknowledgment of “apparent contradictions” in the Bible. As my friend Robert M. Price has said, “an apparent contradiction is the worst kind,” because no matter how many ingenious explanations you devise for explaining it away, it will always remain glaring at you there in the Bible, and you will not know if any one explanation you have devised is truer than another, nor whether all of them are failures and the contradiction indeed exists exactly as it “appears.” Certainly no one’s explanation to try and make the Bible appear inerrant is itself an “inerrant” explanation.

If two verses “apparently” contradict each other, then the best a fundamentalist can do is accept one or the other verse’s “apparent” meaning, and reject or alter the remaining verse’s “apparent” meaning. But that means fundamentalists are “adding and taking away” from what the Bible is “apparently” telling them! In effect, to even admit the existence of “apparent” contradictions is a hopeless position for fundamentalists.

Take the case of Harold Lindsell’s clever suggestion that Peter may have denied Jesus as many as six, or even TWELVE times, if that is what it takes to “harmonize” all the stories of Peter’s denial of Christ that are found in the four Gospels [see Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible]. Of course he has to ignore the fact that all four Gospels agree in their separate tellings that Peter denied Jesus “three” times. So Lindsell has to disagree with something all four Gospels agree upon, in order to preserve his preconception of the Bible’s literal truthfulness! Apparently fundamentalists do not like the Bible they have. [See Dave Matson's article on Peter's Denials of Christ.]

This unwillingness to recognize their own cleverness was also apparent in the Plymouth Brethren (nineteenth-century Protestant fundamentalists who insisted the Bible was literally true.) Someone raised in that milieu, recalls:

They devised an elaborate system of mental watertight compartments. The contradictions of Old and New Testaments were solved by a Doctrine that what was sauce for the Jewish “Dispensation” was not necessarily sauce for the Christian “Dispensation.” Cleverer than Luther, they made possible the Epistle of James [that emphasized “works” over “faith”] by a series of sophisms which really deserve to be exposed as masterpieces of human self-deception. My space forbids.

So, despite all the simplicity of the original logical position [i.e., that the “Word of God” must be without error or contradiction], they were found shifting as best they might from compromise to compromise. But this they never saw themselves; and so far did they take their principle that my father would refuse to buy railway shares because railways were not mentioned in the Bible! Of course the practice of finding a text for everything means ultimately “I will do as I like,” and I suspect my father’s heroics only meant that he thought a slump was coming.

If a fundamentalist searches diligently for something in the Bible, anything in fact, they can almost always find it there. It’s just this uncanny “gift” they have, which they take no credit for. In fact, if the above person’s father had just searched a little more, and with a bit more faith (and creativity) he could have found railways mentioned in the Bible!

Chaplain Tresham Dames Gregg did, and delivered a noteworthy sermon on the subject that was published as a booklet in 1863, The Steam Locomotive as Revealed in the Bible. A Lecture Delivered to Young Men in Sheffield. Gregg’s sermon is a little gem of fundamentalist ingenuity and creativity in which he demonstrates that God gave the prophet Ezekiel a vision of a steam locomotive. (Ezek. 1:4-25)

So, a fundamentalist not only believes that “with God, all things are possible,” but, “with the Bible, all interpretations are possible” (except, of course, any that disagree with church doctrine, or dare to even imply the existence of errors or contradictions).

So fundamentalists display at least two major characteristics:

(1) absolute certainty, and

(2) an unwillingness to recognize all the cleverness employed in keeping their “absolute certainty” afloat.

There is also a third characteristic, namely, grabbing the oars of the “D.S.S. Absolute Certainty” and using them to beat the heads of landlubbers who refuse repeated invitations to join the crew.

I hope J. P. Holding will put down the oars some day just long enough to read more moderate Evangelical works, like James Walton’s NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY on GENESIS, and step up to moderate Evangelicalism himself. He already employs some moderate ideas and explanations whenever he tries to dress up his Biblically inerrant fundamentalism in scholarly clothing. I’ve seen other signs as well that he has been inching nearer to becoming a moderate.

Ten Christian and Jewish theologians, world experts in their respective fields as well as people of faith, including N.T. Wright (whom Holding agrees with on many matters) recently joined together to produce the following series: “Serious Answers to Hard Questions,” in which each of them was asked to address a single perplexing issue, click here.

Also see the book, In God’s Time: The Bible and the Future by moderate Christian theologian, Craig C. Hill--Professor of New Testament Illinois Wesleyan University, B.A.; Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, M.Div.; Oxford University, D.Phil. Excerpts from some chapters in Hill’s book are included at the book’s website. Note the chapter titled, “I Was A Teenage Fundamentalist,” portion s of which can be read by clicking here.

Amazon’s new online reader system even allows you to read almost the entire book online for free by clicking here.

Note the high praise for Hill’s book, In God’s Time, by the prominent scholar of first-century apocalyptic, John J. Collins of Yale University, who touted Craig’s book as “A remarkable achievement...There is a tremendous need for this kind of writing, and very few scholars can write at this level of clarity.”

Review of In God’s Time by Tom Hinkle (Tulsa, OK USA): Up until now, nearly all the reading I have done on the End Times has come from one of two camps: the dispensational camp (mostly in the early years of my Christian walk before I wised up) and the reformed (more specifically, reconstructionist) camp. Despite their obvious and radical differences, both camps shared, at least theoretically, the view that the Bible is inerrant. “In God’s Time” attempts to take a moderate, scholarly approach to eschatology and make it comprehensible to the layperson. In this regard, the book is a success. Hill begins his work by establishing for the reader his approach to biblical interpretation, which is, again, a moderate, scholarly approach, using the tools of historical biblical criticism. Hardline inerrantists will probably opt out at this point (thus my tongue-in-cheek review title), but they will be missing a great deal. Rather than trying to make all the eschatalogical pieces from divergent sources fit together, Hill acknowledges the differences while at the same time accentuating the overarching theme of God’s ultimate victory.

Others who have offered words of praise for Hill’s Book include: Eugene Peterson, author of The Message, Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury designate, Richard Wilke, founder of the Disciple Bible study series, Tony Campolo, Jürgen Moltmann, Luke Timothy Johnson, Pheme Perkins, and Walter Brueggemann.

I sincerely wish J.P. Holding the best in all he reads and writes, as I hope he wishes me as well. If nothing else, I think we both may agree that intellectual pleasures constitute the ultimate form of addiction. Though he does appear a bit more energetic than I when it comes to getting in the literal "last word" concering anything and everything anyone has ever written about something he himself has written. *smile*

Is God Afraid of Us?

Congratulations to Dagoods, this particular post was named post of the week by Atheist Blogs Aggrogated

Since God(s) are made up by humans, we cannot help but continue to see traces of that humanity in them. We become angry, and since God is, to some extent, just a “bigger” human, He becomes angry. We have favorites—God has favorites; we regret actions—God regrets actions, and so on.

Further, God is seen at the Ultimate authority. Some type of “Super-Government” in which He has the power to create, destroy, render judgments, punish and reward on His terms. Yet even “Super-Governments” have their limits. One of which is usurpation. What if the people governed over rebel? What if they remove the authority of the government by virtue of removing the body over which the government exercises authority? It is not much of a King on a one-person island.

As human governors, we fear the rebellion of the people in providing either too much autonomy or too much knowledge. And in the Christian God created by the human authors of the Bible, we see tastes of a God that, just like a “super-human” has a tinge of fear of the very people over which He governs.

What is God afraid of?

Starting with the basics. According to the Christian paradigm we are created creatures. And, by virtue of being created, are less than the Creator itself. But can a Creator instill or create something of which He has no knowledge, no information, no ability Himself to perform?

Could God create “fear” without having the ability to understand what it is to be “afraid”? We are informed that perfect love removes fear. (1 John 4:18) Presumably, the very essence of the Christian God is love. (1 John. 4:8) If God has always existed, and has always been love itself, then He never had a situation in which he removed any fear, including his own, or anything else’s. Fear could not have entered the equation in the first place.

If love and fear are mutually exclusive, and God has always been and God has always been love, then He could never have experienced fear. So, in a twist of the Logical Problem of Evil, we are faced with the Logical Problem of Fear. Where does fear come from in the creature, if the creator has no knowledge, and no experience of it?

The better explanation is that God, at the least, has the ability to be afraid. The next question is whether he has ever exercised that ability. Again, no way for us to know (as He can mask such a fear in the use of power) but since humans wrote the book, we can see their own belief that such an entity would have fear.

Starting at the beginning with the Garden of Eden. We all know the story. Adam and Eve screw up the whole system, eat fruit from the wrong tree. After the cursing, the clothing and the casting, God becomes “concerned” (shall we say) about the Tree of Life. He does not want humans to eat from it and live forever.

So what does He do? He places an angel to watch the Garden itself, and places a flaming sword to guard the Tree of Life. (Gen. 3:24) Now God (being God) could have done a great many things with the Tree of Life. He created it, he can destroy it. (How many times have we seen THAT in the argument on sovereignty of God?) He could have placed it on the Planet Pluto. He could have removed it to Heaven. He could have taken it to the 25th dimension.

But for some unknown reason, he leaves it here. We have all seen the fantastic video of this flaming sword. What? You haven’t seen it? Oh, that’s right. We can’t FIND the Garden of Eden! Why would God have to place an angel and a flaming sword to protect something we cannot even find?

Apparently, in God’s ability to foresee the future, someday humans will have the means and wherewithal to actually arrive at the Garden Gate. (Imagine “Indiana Jones” music in the background.) Only to be denied access to the tree by this sword. There is something about humans eating of a tree God cannot eliminate that causes fear in God. The best solution he could come up with is preventative defense.

Oddly enough, the Christian worldview maintains that we will resurrect and live forever either in Heaven or Hell. So we WILL live forever. Just not on our terms, but on God’s. The Creator of the Universe has to use miraculous power just to keep humans at bay.

Moving to the Tower of Babel. All the humans in the entire world decide to build a city and a tower whose top is in the heavens. (Gen. 11:4) Remember that at the time Genesis was written, common belief was that there as a hard shell about the earth, and that “heaven,” if one built long enough and tall enough, would be attainable. We (and of course God would as well) realize that engineering prohibits buildings of too tall height (not enough strength) and such a project would be eventually, necessarily, abandoned.

God, in order to speed up the discontinuance of this project, scrambles all of the people’s languages. (Gen. 11:7) Now all types of explanations have been provided for why God would do that. Claims that humans were trying to be like God, or it was futile or they were too proud. The problem with every explanation is that God says why He confused their languages, and it is not any of these reasons.

It is because the humans are acting with one purpose, have one language, and God realizes (with His wonderful foresight) that anything they set their mind to doing, they will accomplish. (Gen. 11:6) God does not want this to happen. What is God afraid the humans will do? They are building. They are acting with one purpose. They have one goal.

NOW is the perfect time to introduce yourself, institute a one-world religion, and be done with it! Instead, there is something about this like-minded purpose that forces God to put back on his “creative” work clothes, and enter human minds to create language.

Again, we see God afraid of what the humans are doing, and using his awesome power to thwart it.

It becomes enlightening to read the stories of the Tanakh from the aspect of God using power because he is afraid of what the humans can do. It is what every human institution of power has done since the beginning of time. Why would a God have to do it?

Look at the story of Lot’s wife. We know it. God rains down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah. (Gen. 19:24) The angels had warned Lot and his family to not look back. (Gen. 19:17) Lot’s wife looks back and turns into a Pillar of Salt. (Gen. 19:26) Why? It was not a natural occurrence. We know that seeing burning brimstone does not cause one to turn into salt. It was a miracle of some sort. Arguably a punishment.

Why would God care if they looked back? Notice that at this point, they are no longer fleeing, but are safe in the city of Zoar. They have no need of hurry, nor fear of slowing the process by looking back. Besides, the angel had informed them God couldn’t start the fire until they were safe. (Gen. 19:22) A leisurely walk would have been sufficient!

God says he is going to blow up a city, but doesn’t want you to look. What is he afraid you will see? Oh, I have heard the arguments. “She was longing to go back to the city.” Let’s see….she was watching at least two cities totally consumed by raining fire, people dying, stench overwhelming, and she was longing to go back there? Riiiiggghht. Just like everybody wants to run back in a burning building!

Did she have pity on the people? More than God did, apparently. Did she wonder what happened to her sons-in-law? Or her other daughters? (Who were the sons-in-law married to? Virgins?) God is telling Lot and his wife he is killing their relatives, but don’t look. What was God afraid they would see?

Or look at Joshua’s genocide. God commands the Hebrews to wipe out various tribes, lest the tribe’s rituals and abominations persuade the Israelites to turn from God.

Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Specifically to show how powerful he was, God had just wiped Egypt off the map. He had parted the Reed Sea for at least a month to allow them to pass. He has rained food down on them for forty years to feed them. He parted the Jordan for another month to let them pass. The Hebrews had witnessed the walls of an entire city fall for no other reason than trumpet sound.

Yet God thinks this is not enough? How much power must God expend to keep these people in line? On the one hand we have the inconceivable entity with phenomenal cosmic power, and on the other, a petulant boy-king that displays temper tantrums of terrible terror when He doesn’t get his way! Why is God so afraid that people will forget Him?

Oh, I remember. Because God is sovereign and he has the “right” to act belligerently toward humans. Is it belligerence or bluster? Is it offense or fear?

I generally hate parent/child analogies with God, as they are always incomplete. As a parent, I do not have the abilities a god would have. Saying that, I am sure to use one.

When my daughter was about two, I sent her to her room as punishment. I remember she crossed her arms, deliberately planted her feet, obtained the most defiant tone she could muster, and said, “No!” It struck me as quite humorous. I outweigh her easily by 140 pounds, I am more than twice her height; I can out-run her, out-reach her, and out-muscle her in any way feasible.

Sure she was testing the waters, clashing wills, and seeing what she could get away with. She was a two-year-old. I could easily pick her up and transport her wherever I desire, and there was nothing, physically, she could do about it. That is what made her statement amusing.

Even more so with the Christian God concept. He could wipe us all off the face of the earth and start over. (Came close, once.) He could destroy the Universe as an experiment-gone-bad. He could not only kill me, He could make every atom in my body disappear, and remove my very existence from the memory of every person that ever lived.

Or, if one prefers, he could torture me forever. With all this power, why would God even care what one measly human does? Or a whole group? Wouldn’t God, with all his restrained power, find human antic’s equally amusing? Oh, you can tell me how God hates sin. The same God that created me with the maturity to restrain myself cannot exercise the same compassion?

Only a bully uses harmful power to remind people of their existence.

Ah, but what about Jesus, right? We have the switch of knowledge, and the switch of what human’s focused on in the First Century, resulting in a switch of the type of God humans write about. Jesus was different—HE didn’t use this awesome power to instill fear. He used love.

No, Jesus/God was not afraid of defiance, like Yahweh/God. He was afraid of intelligence.

Jesus gives the parable of the seeds. Mark 4:1-20. After telling the parable to the crowd, a few of those following him asked about the parable. They did not understand it. (Mark 4:10,13) Jesus makes a curious statement:

“To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that 'Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.'” (Mark 4:11-12) (emphasis added)

Jesus then goes on and does for his followers what he would NOT do for the crowd-at-large, and explain directly what he is talking about, so they could understand. Jesus very clearly is stating that he is talking in the muddled terms of parables, because if he talked directly, they would actually turn to God and their sins be forgiven.

The ramifications of this statement are astounding. As God, Jesus would know intimately the depth of human intelligence. He created it. Don’t just read that, but reflect on that. He would know, literally to the word what a person understood. The right word at the right moment would provide brilliant illumination; the wrong word would cause continual confusion. The author of Mark even points out how apt Jesus was at determining how others were thinking. (Mark 2:8)

Having watched the course of history of humans he Created, Jesus would be extremely astute as to the reaction of humans upon gaining this information. This is the same entity that was concerned about human’s purpose and single-mindedness at the Tower of Babel, and realized that only drastic creative measures could intervene in human willfulness.

So in this story, Jesus has gauged his crowd, knows how exactly to speak to them, and deliberately chooses to not provide understanding! In fact, he even emphasizes that if he had, they would turn to God and their sins would be forgiven! His motivation is clear that he has no intention of allowing this to happen!

We are often informed that due to limited human capability, we are unable to fathom a God. I get that, and it certainly makes sense. But here we have a story of a God that CAN communicate a concept, and recognizes that humans can understand this concept, and then deliberately and decisively chooses to not communicate that concept. This has nothing to do with human inability to understand, but rather God’s refusal to communicate.

Why would a God not want a human to understand? Especially as the God is well-aware that such understanding would make the person turn to a God and have their sins forgiven. Isn’t this what the Christian God wants? What is it about humans understanding and God forgiving them that Jesus could not let happen? What was Jesus afraid of? Would God have punished him for doing a bad thing?

Or the request for a sign. In Mark 8:11-12 we have a brief interlude where Pharisees ask for a sign, and Jesus says that this generation will not be given a sign. Again, we are faced with a situation in which Jesus recognizes that humans would understand, and a determined choice is made to not communicate it.

Matthew and Luke modify this to indicate the reason the sign was not given was that it was an evil generation. (Mt. 12:39; Luke 11:29) (They also indicate that there would be a sign, the only one being the sign of Jonah. Of course the humorous bit is that Jesus had just bemoaned cities for not repenting when they had seen all the mighty works He had performed. (Mt. 11:21; Luke 10:13) Was he performing signs or not? And then John has the audacity to have Jesus performing signs all over the place! (John 2:11, 4:48, 20:30))

So Jesus would not perform a sign (or performed a sign, depending on what chapters one reads) for an evil generation. Or that just generation. Jesus of the New Testament refused to use power, because the people would understand. But the Jesus of the Tanakh would use power because the people did not understand and were acting evil! Something changed as to what Jesus was afraid of!

How curious. People of the Tanakh were evil—in comes Jesus with signs, miracles and punishments in order to get them back in line. People of the First Century were evil--Jesus refuses to perform signs, because they might get back in line. What changed?

I, of course, would contend that what changed were the authors. The authors of the Tanakh were focusing on a God that dealt with communities, and used power to bring them back into line. The authors of the New Testament focused on a different God, which dealt with individuals, and used persuasion to bring them into line. The God of the Tanakh would be afraid of what he used—power, the God of the New Testament would be afraid of what he used—persuasion.

It looks to me that there is something this God of Christianity fears I will find out. Wonder what it is?

Islam vs. Christianity

Which faith is more destructive to the civilized world, Islam or Christianity? This is a question I think about from time to time. At first, I thought it was an easy one to answer, but despite deceiving first appearances, the question is not so easily answered. Instead of "Christianity vs. Islam", I selected "Islam vs. Christianity" as the title because the more obvious candidate most would consider to be worse is Islam. Not so fast...

More than anything, Islam is what it appears to be. It is unapologetic about what it is and what it intends to do -- convert the world and kill any and everyone who refuses to go along with it. Islam is a monster, a rabid, hideously ugly, monster, with red glowing eyes, and gray, cold, stinky, scaly skin. It's razor sharp claws and well-used, saber-sized, protruding fangs can be seen from a great distance away. The closer you get to the beast, you begin to hear the threatening, and growling sounds of an angry, snarling, beast. From the very outset, there's no question that this creature is hungry and anxiously hell-bent on making a meal out of you. Islam is openly aggressive, expressly intolerant of the beliefs of others, and suicidally violent, no matter what you hear from the proponents of the more toned down versions of modern Islam who tell us it is a religion of peace. Nonsense. Islam is a dangerous disease of the mind, a disease which must be destroyed before it destroys us.

On the other hand, I'm not being tortured, dismembered, or beheaded for choosing a religion, or lack thereof, with the current flavor of Christianity. I observe one group and find blatant savagery, tribal hatred, and a primitive, diabolical faith -- Islam. Then I observe Christianity, a beautiful faith which seems pleasant, clean, soft-toned, and proper in form and comeliness, but when I look at her underhandedness and manipulation of the world, I am equally appalled at what I see.

In the early 90's, just after my high school graduation, I had a job with Subway. One bright Monday afternoon, I was taking orders and making sandwiches as usual when a nicely dressed saleswoman came in, a knockout in the looks department. I noticed she didn't order anything, but just sat down at a table and waited for the line of customers to die down. I was young and naive at the time, and unbeknownst to me, was having a sales pitch pulled on me. It was very cleverly done. She was a smooth operator, peddling some cologne for men. I later learned one of the bright and shining pendants on her suit coat was an award for the most sales at her company. She worked me like a pro, starting in with polished small talk and ready answers for every reason I had not to buy..."What? You don't wear cologne? Women love cologne. Here, check out this sample, doesn't it smell good?" If she hadn't been so damn attractive, I would have felt verbally assaulted and told her to read the sign on the front door, "No Solicitors!" She didn't succeed in selling me, but sure as hell did a good job trying. When I discovered her intentions, the awestruck-ness went away. Her initial kindness and flirtatious personality, her goodly appearance and apparent interest in talking to me was all a nice facade, a put-on. I was no longer interested in what she had to say.

Christianity is a sweet-talking sales gal too. She can be hard to turn away from until we see her true colors. Underneath, she is not as noble and majestic as her contenders would like you to believe she is.

What kind of words can I use to describe Christianity? None really, the reason being, Christianity's forms are always diverse and changing depending on what angle a given set of her promoters are seeking to fight for.

But I am afraid of her...I'm afraid of one day waking up to a nation where the education departments promote creationism along side evolution, lumping superstition in with science. I'm afraid of our nation having to one day face greater difficulties because of religiously influenced leaders and commanders who feel compelled to put our soldiers in harm's way out of the Christian compulsion to keep helping the Jews fight their wars, while it costs the lives of our boys in green. I'm afraid of getting out of bed one day to find a government that has reverted back to oppressive edicts and judgments, like "Blue Law Weekends" and other unwanted products of biblical influences. I'm afraid to think of all the lives that will be lost if Christianity and her proponents continually stand against stem cell research and other developments of the vital sciences out of foolish superstitious paranoia. I'm afraid to one day open my eyes to find censorship increased and freedom of speech hemmed in, resulting in a greater stifling of liberty. I'm afraid to think of the loads of psychological damage inflicted by parents, pastors, and counselors, upon the kids and young adults in their care, who impose the damaging and restricting principles of New Testament morality and sexuality on their minds. I'm afraid to think that the right-wingers will one day get their wish and have abortion banned, forcing many handicapped children into lives of despair, and bringing more unneeded human lives into this world, weakening it. I'm afraid of growing old and one day being incapacitated by a stroke, and finding others having to wait on me, hand and foot, since euthanasia would be outlawed. This is why I am afraid of Christianity.

These changes would happen slowly, with sleight-of-hand motives and pie crust promises of politicians...subtely and discreetly, with the replacing of rulers, and the making of policies.

When I find myself contemplating the underhanded wiles of Christianity, I am reminded of this quote by Cicero...

"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared."
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator (106-43 B.C.E). “Speech in the Roman Senate.”

Like Cicero's description of the traitor, Christianity is a disarming opponent. Few seem prepared to handle her, and this can make her a greater threat than her vicious and cruel stepchild, Islam.

Then there is another factor involved: influence. We have to ask...which faith, with their dangerous and subversive qualities, can be the most far-reaching? Islam does not hold back their hatred of decency or civility. The powers that be - those countries who value love and peace - will see the beast coming, and knowing it's intentions, will knock the atrocious creature down to size and it will scurry off again to try another day. It is easily watched and tracked, and if kept on a short leash, does little harm. The beast is also poorly funded and it's grubby paws do not have access to the latest and best technologies. They can build gas chambers, but not atomic bombs. Christianity, in contrast, is sly, a seductive whore who sleeps with those in power to gain power of her own. She has greater influence, decadent wealth and funding, and access to the best technology on the planet. Currently, she stands as the most numerous of religions. One could well argue that this puts Christianity in the lead as a more dangerous force to be reckoned with.

So which is worse, the diabolical Beast of Islam or the turncoat Bride of Christ? I can't decide. I can't bring myself to identify either of them as categorically worse than the other. They are both abominations to mankind, and the sooner they perish from the face of the earth, the better.

(JH)