RFC from Atheists for Empirical Evidence That Refutes Biblical Claims

61 comments

RFC: Request for Comment.
A belief should come from a reason, which should be derived from logic which should be based on evidence.

This article is intended as a fun exercise between Christian and Atheist teams. This article is a request for Comment from Atheists for items in the bible that are refuted by empirical evidence.

For example some things I can think of follow.

- Witches do not really exist
- No evidence of the Exodus
- No evidence of the sun and moon stopping as in Joshua 10
- No evidence of darkness during the crucifixion
- No corroboration that Many bodies of dead saints came out of their graves after the resurrection.
- Dubious evidence of Solomons Temple
- No evidence of the two great united Kingdoms of Israel and Judah

I heartily endorse you to get your friends to participate and take those evidence loving Christians to task!

In another article I'll compare this list with the other teams list and see what we get!

Natural Disasters As Part Of The Problem Of Evil

44 comments

(Resolved! God Caused The Problem of Evil/Needless Suffering.) This article briefly discusses Natural Disasters as Part Of The Problem Of Evil. I argue that the problem of Evil was caused by God and his process of Creation. While I suspect that almost no one will dispute that natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcano's, tsunami's, hurricanes, tornado's and such are caused by natural seismological and meteorological processes, I claim that if there is a God, the way he made the earth guarantees that they will happen.

Some argue that Natural Disasters are not Disasters unless they affect people. I think Bambi and Peter Singer would disagree with this definition, but it works for this article. The intersection in this to the problem of Evil is that mankind is supposed to have brought the PoE on himself by disobeying god in the early days of its interaction with him. I avoid saying Adam and Eve because I think most people accept that there were people on the earth before 6000 - 10000 years ago. If natural disasters affect people and cause suffering and is used by clergy as an example of Gods Judgment and punishment on humanity, then it doesn't seem to follow from the fact that it happened before humans were humans, Adam and Eve or not. And if one argues that Natural Disasters happen anyway but sometimes are directed by God, then I call into the question the moral principles of group punishment especially when some of the punished are undergoing treatments to keep them alive in hospitals, toddlers and babies. Maybe some of you don't know this but a group of doctors in a hospital are under suspicion of 'hastening nature' because a disproportionate number of their terminally ill patients died within a couple of hours during hurricane Katrina.

I suppose one could say that God knew that mankind would disobey God so he made the earth this way as a result of foreknowledge, but then I have to wonder why make man in a way that would guarantee that he would 'malfunction' and need to be kicked around by the environment. If god was omniscient, and he knew everything ahead of time, including what choices we would make throughout our life and who the saved would be, then we only have the appearance of free will. But that debate is not the point of this article or necessary as a premise.

So if God created the world he created in such a way that it is constantly changing, and these changes seem to be necessary for it to work properly. These changes affect one another sometimes to a frightening degree causing the events that HUMANS PERCEIVE as disasters and "Gods Judgment". These events are a result of and necessary for the ecology of the earth. They have nothing to do with Mankind. Mankind just happens to live in its path. They happened before mankind showed up, and will happen after he is gone, and in fact may cause mankind's extinction.

God is a Philosophical Concept and NOT and Extraterrestrial Power

4 comments

After spending over 35 years as a true believer in the Bible and Christianity, plus listening to all the philosophical arguments from every kind of philosopher (both medieval and modern) along with reading tons of theological apologetics, I am convinced that God and the metaphysical word of religion (Christianity) exist only in and is given life strictly by the living and creative brains of humans.

A reply might be: Yes, but Christianity has a god who is the source of “absolute truth” from which we have a standard to base our morals and ethics on. To which I would respond: Are Disney cartoons such as the Little Mermaid true? It certainly has moral and ethical battles between good and evil…the Little Mermaid and Sebastian the crab vs. the evil Sea Witch. So if truth needs to be based on morals and ethics, then the Little Mermaid is true. Certainly we know humans drew and wrote the Disney cartoons, but then modern scholars (other than fundamentalist) would say that the Bible too was written and created by humans just as any other ancient text was.

Thus, if the secular world wants a reference for kids teaching both ethical and moral truths, the cartoon world is full of ethical and moral characters going back from Betty Boop to Tooter Turtle to the present computer created semi-real Teletubbies. I would bet anyone coffee and a donut that kids today learn more from the Cartoon Network then twelve years spent in most churches services and Sunday Schools. Plus, they have fun learning without the fear of revenge from a wrathful God who only offers a carrot (Heaven) and stick (Hell) mentality.

Other than a symbolic book used in court rooms and swearing in ceremonies, the Bible remains a mostly unread iconoclastic book by the majority of Christians. Most believers I’ve talked to are almost totally illiterate on Biblical knowledge (as Hector Avalos notes in his book: The End of Biblical Studies). I asked a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher of 12 years where the book of Tobit was located. She said that sounds like an Old Testament book. She was close, but wrong.

In the end, present debates by Christian apologists keep God alive are his philosophical life support system. With no physical proof of any vital signs of life for a so-called "living God" today, he is indeed simply a philosophical concept and NOT and extraterrestrial power. God's home is not in Heaven, but just a the Bible says, he lives only in the hearts (mind) of those who love him.

Man, that's enough to make a deacon shout! Amen?

William Lane Craig vs. Frank Zindler Debate Christianity

19 comments



This is a fairly good debate. I liked both of their opening statements. They express their positions quite well. It took place at the Willow Creek Church in 1994.

The Myth of the Problem of Evil

35 comments

My thesis is simply this: There is no good. There is no bad / evil. There is only an event and the interpretation of that event. This destroys the idea of an absolute truth (god) and leaves us with simply an interpretation of an action founded upon the contextual needs of society. As far a religion goes, it is only a tool made either good or bad/evil by the faithful in that the living give life to past so-called deities who are demanded to have moral and ethical goodness. A living religion is kept good by the social needs of the living.

So in the religious context, is “God good”? Simply depends on the time the Biblical text was written and how society defines a “Good God”. Primary interest here is the Hebrew text of Numbers 22: 22 where (as in Job) God uses Satan to doing his bidding. The Hebrew of Numbers 22: 22 clearly reads “Elohim” used "Satan" block Balaam’s donkey. To keep God looking good, the English text follows the LXX (Septuagint) translating “Satan” as “Angel”. Scholars have noted that Yahweh’s messenger here is (as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible) is basically a hypostatization of God or, as noted by R.S. Kluger (Satan in the Old Testament, 1967); the real Satan in Numbers 22 is none other than Yahweh (God) himself!

Thus, when the Judeo-Christian traditions needs “Good” or “Evil”, an earlier text of an infamous deity can simply be revitalized via theological relevancy as an ideological move towards some concept of “goodness”. This fact can be readily heard in the sermons of the radio and TV evangelist who beat to death several dozen Old Testament verses while staying away from such horrific texts as Numbers 31 or, put another away, the Biblical text is like a cow pasture; when its preached from (to kept the concepts of good and evil relevant) preachers must watch where they step (preach). God is only good because the preacher is good via selective reading and theological interpretation of the scriptural text.

So how do I know what is to be considered good or bad (evil)? The same as my dog! And one thing is for sure: He sure the hell is not religious!

Finally, my question to all the C.S. Lewis fans that need some standard of good to know what is evil and, as one of the “Lewis Christians” asked me once: Why are you not out killing, stealing and raping?

My reply: I’ll leave that to God, Moses and the Israelites in the Hebrew Bible!

Antony Flew vs. Thomas B. Warren Debate on the Existence of God

15 comments
Since there is quite a buzz about Antony Flew's change of mind, maybe people would like to see him in his prime debating a Church of Christ professor. See here. You will need Quick Time Player to view it if you don't already have it.

Have You Ordered My Book Yet?

8 comments

I'm the sort of person who gets excited when what I do is helpful and receives some recognition, just like anyone else. Anyway, as of today my book is ranked 3,635th on amazon, 11th in the category of atheism books, and 12th in apologetical books. And it's not yet out! See capture below...

On Reductios and the Argument From Evil

35 comments

I have said that one of the most asinine Christian arguments is probably the one where it's argued I cannot use the argument from evil as an atheist without having an ultimate moral standard for good and evil, seen here. I stand by that. Let me comment on a couple of others who have weighed in on the matter...

Let's say I press the argument from evil upon the Christian theist. I argue that based upon her own beliefs (not mine) that it's improbable that her Omni-God exists. As I've already argued it's asinine to say I cannot make that argument. Even Vic Reppert has weighed in that I can do this, here, at least theoretically.

Now, over at The Prosblogion Blog we read:

The basic point here is this: The theist can always get out of the atheist's argument by rejecting something that the atheist thinks is nonsense or contradictory--and how can the atheist complain about that?

But this is just silly on a few levels. In the first place it's not an atheist argument at all, as I've argued, especially since it doesn't lead one to atheism if it's sound, and Christians themselves must deal with it even if atheists never argued for it.

Moreover, can the theist "always" get out of this problem? Many theists have become Process thinkers because of it, and many others have become atheists because of it, although it doesn't necessarily lead to atheism. No, theists cannot "always" get out of this problem. Many do, of course, but many do not. The force of the argument is pretty powerful.

Surely Trent Dougherty is talking about tactics here, isn't he? That, tactically speaking, the theist always has an out. Well, in my opinion, a Holocaust denier always has an out too, as does a Flat Earth Society member. Just because there is always an out doesn't mean much to me, for I'm talking about probabilities here, not possibilities. Is it logically possible that a good omnipotent God exists? Yes, it's probable that this is possible, although I even have my doubts about this. But given my argument it's not probable an Omni-God exists given the amount of suffering in this world, and probabilities are all we have to work with. After all, Jim Carrey in the movie "Dumb and Dumber" still thought he had a chance to get the girl of his dreams after she said he didn't have a one in a million chance, too.

Then Trent asks how an atheist can complain when the theist rejects his argument. That too is silly. In the first place, who's complaining, and about what? Besides, if the theist rejects my argument, so what? That's within his epistemic rights. Arguments are rejected all of the time. Am I then to just walk away from the argument at that point? Why should I? I still think it's powerful even if a particular theist or group of theists reject it. Do theists walk away from an argument when an atheist rejects it? No! She regroups, reformulates it better, and comes back for another go of it, and so do I.

Sheesh. Sorry, but these kind of thinking skills baffle me. Where's the substance? That's what I want to know. With thinking like this no wonder there are believers.

The Most Asinine Christian Argument I've Probably Ever Heard

46 comments

This argument is touted recently by the Maverick Philosopher which Vic Reppert links to, who merely asks the question of whether or not he's correct. It's used by C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, Paul Copan, and others like Steve Hays and David Wood. It concerns the problem of evil and whether or not the atheist can make that argument without an objective standard to know evil. Now I don't usually call Christian arguments asinine, so hear me out...

C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, argues from the start that there can be no evil without absolute goodness (God) to measure it against. "How do you know a line is crooked without having some knowledge of what a straight line is?” In other words, I need some sort of objective moral in order to say something is morally evil. But the word “evil” here is used both as a term describing the fact that there is suffering, and at the same time it’s used as a moral term to describe whether or not such suffering makes the belief in a good God improbable, and that’s an equivocation in the word’s usage. The fact that there is suffering is undeniable. Whether it makes the belief in a good God improbable is the subject for debate. I'm talking about pain...the kind that turns our stomachs. Why is there so much of it when there is a good omnipotent God? I’m arguing that the amount of intense suffering in this world makes the belief in a good God improbable from a theistic perspective, and I may be a relativist, a pantheist, or a witchdoctor and still ask about the internal consistency of what a theist believes.

The dilemma for the theist is to reconcile senseless suffering in the world with his own beliefs (not mine) that all suffering is for a greater good. It’s an internal problem for the theist and the skeptic is merely using the logical tool for assessing arguments called the reductio ad absurdum, which attempts to reduce to absurdity the claims of a person. The technique is to force a claimant to choose between accepting the consequences of what he believes, no matter how absurd it seems, or to reject one or more premises in his argument. The person making this argument does not believe the claimant and is trying to show why her beliefs are misguided and false to some degree, depending on the force of his counter-argument. It’s that simple. If skeptics cannot use this argument here on this issue then we should disallow all reductio ad absurdum type arguments. Just ask yourself if, in order to show Idealism to be implausible by accepting the premises of George Berkeley’s argument, whether you therefore must abandon your view that there is a material world, and you’ll see what I mean.

Christian theists argue that in the natural world nothing can count as evil for the atheist, since everything that happens is part of nature. So, they claim atheists have no objective basis for arguing there is any evil in the natural world that can count against the existence of the Christian God. But this is fallacious reasoning. What counts as evil in my atheist worldview is a separate problem from the Christian problem of evil. They are distinctly separate issues. Christians cannot seek to answer their internal problem by claiming atheists also have a problem with evil. Yet, that’s exactly what they do here, which is an informal fallacy known as a red herring, or skirting the issue. Christians must deal with their internal problem. Atheists must do likewise. I will not skirt my specific problem by claiming Christians have one. I adjure them to do the same.

The fact that many professional philosophers agree with this can be seen in reading through the book, The Evidential Argument From Evil, edited by Daniel Howard-Snyder. Not one scholarly Christian theist attempted to make this argument in that book; not Swinburne, not Plantinga, not Alston, not Wykstra, not Van Inwagen and not Howard-Snyder. I suggest it’s because they know it is not dealing with the problem at all. They recognize it as a bogus argument, and obviously so.

That this is a theistic problem can be settled once and for all by merely reminding the Christian that she would still have to deal with this problem even if I never raised it at all. That is, even if I did not argue that the existence of evil presents a serious problem for the Christian view of God, the Christian would still have to satisfactorily answer the problem for herself. So to turn around and argue that as an atheist I need to have an objective moral standard to make this argument is nonsense. It’s an internal problem that would still demand an answer if no atheist ever argued for it. The problem of evil is one of the reasons why Process Theologians have conceded that God is not omnipotent. It didn’t take atheists to persuade them to abandon God’s omnipotence at all. The problem speaks for itself. There is nothing wrong with a Christian who wishes to evaluate the internal consistency of her own belief system. To say otherwise is to affirm pure fideism.

Should We Teach Religion in School Poll Data

8 comments

Here is our poll data for the above question:

NO! It's against the Constitution, and/or creation science simply isn't science. 94 (38%)

Yes, but only to educate students what each religion teaches. 81 (33%)

Yes, I can agree with Dennett's proposal for an informative open debate about religion in the classroom. 60 (24%)

Yes, but only to present the evidence for creation along with evolution for debate. 8 (3%)

What do you make of the results?

Becky Garrison Interviewed by The Friendly Atheist

3 comments
Becky Garrison is the author of the just-released The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith . She is also Senior Contributing Editor for The Wittenburg Door, a Christian satirical magazine which I used to read every month for a few years. Becky had requested a review copy of my book so I struck up a conversation with her on My Space. She's intelligent. Hemant Mehta, the friendly atheist who "Sold His Soul on Ebay," interviewed her recently. See what you think.

A Review of John Beversluis' book C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion: Revised and Updated

56 comments

C.S. Lewis has had an enormous impact on the evangelical mind. His books still top the charts in bookstores. But what about the substance of his arguments? Philosopher Dr. John Beversluis wrote the first full-length critical study of C. S. Lewis's apologetic writings, published by William B. Eerdmans, titled C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion (1985). For twenty-two years it was the only full-length critical study of C.S. Lewis’s writings.

Beversluis was a former Christian who studied at Calvin College under Harry Jellema who inspired Christian thinkers like Alvin Plantinga (who was already in graduate school), and Nicholas Wolterstoff (who was a senior when he entered). Later he was a student at Indiana University with my former professor James D. Strauss. He became a professor at Butler University.

In this first book, Beversluis took as his point of departure Lewis's challenge where he said: “I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it” (Mere Christianity p. 123). Beversluis thoroughly examined that hypothesis and found the evidence Lewis presents should not lead people to accept Christianity.

According to Beversluis, his first book “elicited a mixed response-indeed, a response of extremes. Some thought I had largely succeeded. I was complimented for writing a ‘landmark’ book that ‘takes up Lewis's challenge to present the evidence for Christianity and ... operates with full rigor’” (p. 9-10). But the critics were “ferocious.” He said, “I had expected criticism. What I had not expected was the kind of criticism…I was christened the "bad boy" of Lewis studies and labeled the "consummate Lewis basher" (p. 10).

In his “Revised and Updated” book published by Prometheus Books, which was prompted by Keith Parsons and Charles Echelbarger, Beversluis claims “this is not just a revised and updated second edition, but a very different book that supercedes the first edition on every point” (p.11). According to him: “Part of my purpose in this book to show, by means of example after example, the extent to which the apparent cogency of his arguments depends on his rhetoric rather than on his logic…Once his arguments are stripped of their powerful rhetorical content, their apparent cogency largely vanishes and their apparent persuasiveness largely evaporates. The reason is clear: it is not the logic, but the rhetoric that is doing most of the work. We will have occasion to see this again and again. In short, my purpose in this book is not just to show that Lewis's arguments are flawed. I also want to account for their apparent plausibility and explain why they have managed to convince so many readers” (pp. 20,22).

Additionally, Beversluis tells us, “My aim in this revised and updated edition is twofold. First, I will revisit and reexamine Lewis's arguments in light of my more recent thoughts about them. Second, I will to reply to my critics and examine their attempts to reformulate and defend his arguments, thereby responding not only to Lewis but to the whole Lewis movement—that cadre of expositors, popular apologists, and philosophers who continue to be inspired by him and his books. I will argue that their objections can be met and that even when Lewis's arguments are formulated more rigorously than he formulated them, they still fail” (p. 11).

C.S. Lewis’ writings contain three arguments for God’s existence, the “Argument from Desire,” the “Moral Argument,” and the “Argument From Reason.” Lewis furthermore argued that the Liar, Lunatic, Lord dilemma/trilemma shows Jesus is God. Lewis also deals with the major skeptical objection known as the Problem of Evil. Beversluis examines all of these arguments and finds them defective, some are even fundamentally flawed. Lastly Beversluis examines Lewis’ crisis of faith when he lost the love of his life, his wife. (He denies he ever said Lewis lost his faith).

I can only briefly articulate what Beversluis says about these arguments here, but his analysis of them is brilliant and devastating to Lewis’ whole case. The Argument From Desire echoes Augustine’s sentiment in his Confessions when addressing God that “You have made us for yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you.” Lewis develops this into an argument for God’s existence which can be formulated in several ways, but the bottom line is that since humans have a desire for joy beyond the natural world, which is what he means by "joy," there must be an object to satisfy that desire in God. Beversluis subjects this argument to criticism on several fronts. How universal is the desire for this "joy"? Is "joy" even a desire? Is Lewis’ description of "joy" a natural desire at all, since desires are biological and instinctive? Do all our desires have fulfillment? What about people who have been satisfied by things other than God, with their careers, spouses and children? In what I consider the most devastating question, he asks if there is any propositional content to the object of Lewis’ argument? Surely if there is an object that corresponds to the desire for "joy" then one who finds this object should be able to describe it from such an experience. Based upon Lewis’ argument she can’t. In fact, Beversluis argues if she cannot do that how does she even know it's an object that corresponds to her desire for "joy" in the first place?

Lewis’ Moral Argument is basically that all people have a notion of right and wrong, and the only explanation for this inner sense of morality must come from a Power behind the moral law known as God. Beversluis claims this argument is based on a few questionable assumptions related to the Euthyphro dilemma, and it depends on the theory of ethical subjectivism from which Lewis only critiques straw man versions rather than the robust versions of Hume and Hobbes. And if that isn’t enough to diminish his case, deductively arguing that there is a Power behind this moral law is committing “the fallacy of affirming the consequent.” (p. 99). 1) If there is a Power behind the moral law then it must make itself known internally within us. 2) We do find this moral law internally within us. .: Therefore, there is a Power behind the moral law. As such this argument is invalid. Of course, there is much more here in Beversluis’ argument.

The Argument From Reason, as best seen in Lewis’ book, Miracles, “is the philosophical backbone of the whole book,” from which “his case for miracles depends.” (p. 145). Lewis champions the idea that if naturalism is true such a theory “impugns the validity of reason and rational inference,” and as such, naturalists contradict themselves if they use reason to argue their case. If you as a naturalist have ever been troubled by such an argument you need to read Beversluis’ response to it, which is the largest chapter in his book, and something I can’t adequately summarize in a few short sentences. Suffice it to say, he approvingly quotes Keith Parsons who said: “surely Lewis cannot mean that if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as valid reasoning. If he really thought this, he would have to endorse the hypothetical ‘If naturalism is true, then modus ponens is invalid.’ But since the consequent is necessarily false, then the hypothetical is false if we suppose naturalism is true (which is what the antecedent asserts), and Lewis has no argument.” (p. 174).

Lewis’ Liar, Lunatic, Lord Dilemma/Trilemma is one of the most widely used arguments among popular apologists, in variations, where since Jesus claimed he was God, the only other options are that he was either a liar or a lunatic, or both, which Lewis argues isn’t reasonable. Therefore Jesus is God, who he claimed he was. Even William Lane Craig defends it in his book Reasonable Faith. But it is widely heralded as Lewis’ weakest argument as he defended it, and fundamentally flawed. Beversluis subjects Lewis’ defense of it and his defenders to a barrage of rigorous intellectual attacks. There is the problem of knowing what Jesus claimed, which by itself “is sufficient to rebut the Trilemma.” (p. 115). Also it is a false dilemma. Even if Jesus claimed he was God he could simply be mistaken, not a lunatic, for lunatics can be very reasonable in everyday life and still have delusions of grandeur. And it’s quite possible for someone to be a good moral teacher and yet be wrong about whether he was God. Furthermore, the New Testament itself indicates many people around him including his own family thought he was crazy. In the end, Beversluis claims, “we can now dispense of the Lunatic or Fiend Dilemma once and for all….If the dilemma fails, as I have argued, the trilemma goes with it. In the future, let us hear no more about these arguments.” (p. 135). I agree.

In Lewis’ book, The Problem of Pain, he deals head on with the Problem of Evil coming at the heels of WWII. Suffice it to say, as Victor Reppert summarized the argument of his first book, Beversluis: “If the word ‘good’ must mean approximately the same thing when we apply it to God as what it means when we apply it to human beings, then the fact of suffering provides a clear empirical refutation of the existence of a being who is both omnipotent and perfectly good. If on the other hand, we are prepared to give up the idea that ‘good’ in reference to God means anything like what it means when we refer to humans as good, then the problem of evil can be sidestepped, but any hope of a rational defense of the Christian God goes by the boards.”

This is must reading if you think C.S. Lewis was a great apologist, and it's part of the Debunking Christianity Challenge. Beversluis’ arguments are brilliant and devastating to the apologetics of Lewis and company.

The Dawkins Effect: How The God Delusion Mainstreamed Atheism (Reposted)

9 comments

Simon Owens over at "Bloggasm: Was it good for you?" wrote a piece called The Dawkins Effect: How The God Delusion Mainstreamed Atheism. It’s well written and I recommend it, especially since he quotes me in it. I'm reposting it because he claims it was his best article in 2007.

He wrote:

PZ Myers has said several times in his writing that he thinks that Dawkins has done very little to convert the religious into nonbelievers. Instead, The God Delusion and other books like it are simply rallying calls for the choir. But other atheists have argued that the poor conversion rate is the result of a weak book. Some atheist purists have made claims — generally in blog comments and online message boards — that The God Delusion is inferior to much weightier atheist texts.

John W. Loftus is one of several atheists who write at a group blog called Debunking Christianity. When I interviewed him in August, he seemed to disagree with what he considers the offensive tactics Dawkins uses. “Even though we argue against…faith, we do so in a more or less non-offensive way,” he told me. “To belittle [the religious] like other sites do is not effective if we want them to consider our arguments. There is a place for ridicule, and people on both side of the fence do this. Sometimes it just feels good to vent, I suppose. But that’s not us (for the most part). That’s one of the reasons so many Christians visit us and discuss these issues with us, and I like it this way.”

Loftus expressed ambivalence toward Dawkins, saying that on the one hand, The God Delusion book suffers from a lack or research (in Loftus’s mind), while on the other hand, “Dawkins has gained for atheists an audience.” This audience, he argued, has caused more people to provide additional research against religion in general. “That’s something I am grateful to Dawkins for,” he said, “even if educated people immersed in these debates don’t think that highly about his arguments.”

Empirically Considered: The Body and Blood of Jesus VS the Body and Blood of Humans

8 comments
The Blood of Jesus vs. Human Blood

According to the Gospel Tracts (as well as my training in Christian schools), it is the believer’s faith in Jesus Christ and His Vicarious Atonement of His shed blood on the cross that saves the confessed sinner from judgment before God. If one accepts this, then he or she is assured of eternal life with Christ.


So what would an old unsaved sinner (even more damning, a Secular Humanist and Atheist) like me have to offer the world in light of this fantastic Christian claim of Jesus?

How about reality!

For one: Every month I go to the Blood Connection here in Greenville where I spend from one to three hours giving at least two of the following: blood, plasma or platelets. While lying in the donor’s chair, I’m often informed how many lives my blood and its products will have saved (that’s right: SAVED…Amen?!).

Let’s say an old sinner (or saved Christian for that matter) is injured by doing something stupid (sinful) such as driving while intoxicated and wrecks his vehicle with a lot of blood loss. This individual is now facing the “judgment of death” unless he or she can get an infusion of my -or another donor’s - life saving blood. If, in the case they got my blood, then just like Jesus Christ my blood atoned for their sin by giving them life. But real life here and now and not some pie in the sky in the sweet by and by!

Lets go further and put Christ to the test again. Let’s take the example of a hemophiliac or a cancer patient who desperately needs my platelets in order to live. Now they could do nothing and have a total Biblical faith in Jesus and (via prayer) claim John 14:13-14 (“And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” Or they can depend totally on “sinful” and often “unsaved” people (such as my self) and be given life here and now (not just some religious Bull Shit)!

Still have doubts, well just look how many faithful believers in the sect of Christian Science (Mary Barker Eddy’s group) who trusted in FAITH ONLY as promised in the Bible, but have died while praying to Jesus Christ claiming his promises. Also, Jehovah Witnesses who consider honoring God and His Word (the Bible) by not getting blood transfusions.




The Body of Jesus vs. The Body of Humans

Christianity holds the body of Jesus as sinless, pure (that is, undefiled by sin), plus he was fathered by God Himself though a virgin as extra protection. But, empirically speaking, just what value is theology and the body of Jesus for the suffering of humanity in this present life?

In 1999, my fourteen year old daughter was taken to the hospital with chronic vomiting and weight loss. Her blood pressure was 184 over 123. After some lab tests, the staff doctor called in a Nephrologist to confirm the test: End Stage Renal Failure. He told my wife and me that we had three choices: My daughter could live the rest of her life on dialysis, better yet, hopefully one day get a kidney transplant, or we could take her home and let her die. However, we better act soon as she had about two weeks to live!

I remember sitting beside my daughter’s hospital bed and a seeing her now frail body with one tube for in her neck for hemodialysis, plus several more tubes in her arms for plasma and blood.

I also remember my daughter (who had been raised in Sunday School and Church all her life (I let my child attend with their mom and decide for themselves)) who, when she was told that all the churches were “praying for her”, ask me crying: “Daddy, I love my cat and dog and I take care of them. If Jesus loves me, why did he not take care of my kidneys?” I must admit, just how do you answer someone that young and in that much mental pain?

After she was on dialysis for four months and in a state of decline, the doctor told us that some people don’t tolerate it well and my daughter was one of the ones who did not. He told us that any long term life for her would have to be in the form of a kidney transplant.

As an Atheist and Secular Humanist, I came forward and was consider a match.
In short, in November 1999 I gave her one of my kidneys and she has been doing very well health wise since.

With that background said, I want to close with the second part of my thesis below.

Beginning in 2002, my daughter attended her first National Transplant Games. These games are composed of over 3,000 people from the United States who have had kidney, liver, heart, pancreas, lung, bone and bowel transplants given by either a living people or a non-living donors (donated by the family). Although, there is competition at the games, the games themselves are really about the celebration of life here and now.

What I found very interesting at both the opening and the closing ceremonies is that at NO TIME was there ever a prayer offered (even to some god in general), nor did I hear anyone make the statement; “It is only by the Grace of God that I’m here!” Moreover,
at the last two Transplant Games I attended with my daughter, I made it a point to try find out if there was any credit given to religion at all (Christian or otherwise). There was none! I am not saying these people are not religious, but credit was given where credit is due…to secular society and modern medicine.

In short, while Christian apologists sit behind a keyboard in fairly good heath and philosophically discuss the “proofs for God and Christian dogma”, these 3,000 plus transplant reciprocates have looked death in the face and are alive today simply because of secular technology and they know it! Apart from the games themselves, great heart felt thanks are given to modern medicine and the pharmacology that makes their life giving anti-rejection drugs possible…all from sinful man.

In the end, the reality of the body and blood of Jesus (along with Jesus’ fantastic Biblical promises) are, for the terminal chronically sick, left totally out of the reality of life’s reach. Being stored up in some mythical Heaven, they are only awarded after death to those who are deemed good and doctrinally obedient.

However, to try and tell the chronically ill person with end-stage organ failure or someone bleeding to death that somehow it “is God’s will” or that God’s Word requires you to just suffer (or that it was some ploy of Satan) is just plain apologetically trying to save theology at the expense of the dying; a tactic religion is well know for.

Another One Leaves the Fold...Is there Anything Comparable on the Christian Side of the Fence?

31 comments

For more of his videos see here.

I just want to note that what is common to every team member here at DC, along with Robert M. Price, John Beversluis, Hector Avalos, Michael Shermer, Bart Ehrman, William Dever, and so on, is that we were very serious about our faith and studied to defended it against the skeptics, but in the end we abandoned the effort and abandoned our faith. Is there anything comparable on the Christian side of the fence with skeptics who were very serious about their skepticism and studied to defend it against Christianity who subsequently abandoned the effort and became evangelical Christians? Surely if Christianity is true, serious skeptics who adopted the Christian faith should be commonplace. Where are they?

Hector Avalos On Why He Rejected Christianity

21 comments

Dr. Avalos is the author of The End of Biblical Studies, which is part of the DC Challenge.

Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett - Part 1

3 comments

Part 2 can be found below. The rest should be easy enough to find...

Spinning Plates and Souls: Salvation and Christianity

0 comments

When I was a youth back in the early to mid sixties, I (along with my family) would watch the Ed Sullivan Show. While I did not care much for the singers, I was fascinated by the magicians and acrobatics he would have on.

One of my most memorable stunts Ed had on was a man who was fast with his hand and on his feet. This individual claimed he could place a plate one a stick, give the plate a spin and keep the plate balanced and spinning on the stick by moving the supporting stick under the plate in a circular movement. What fascinated me more was that this man said he was going to try and get twenty or more plates spinning on their sticks at the same time. However, as he started more and more plates spinning on their sticks, he had to constantly return to the early plates to add more energy to the sticks to keep the plates spinning or, as the slowed in their motion, they would shatter as they hit the floor.

Even though this individual was fast with his hands and feet, after he had set the twelfth plate spinning, the earlier ones would began to wobble and many fell off their sticks breaking on the floor. Although he got about twelve plats spinning, the rate of plates slowing to a wobble, losing gyroscopic balance and breaking as they hit the floor increased until he reached a point where he was just (pardon the pun) breaking even.

Like the plate spinner on the Ed Sullivan Show, evangelical Christianity is spinning “souls” on the stick of faith though emotionalism and the illogics of theology called dogma. Just as in the first two Great Awakenings, evangelical Christianity is constantly proselytizing souls for the Kingdom of God only to have many earlier souls looses their spiritual momentum, began to wobble in their faith and, if not pumped back into some gyroscopic spiritual sensationalism (though revivals or some other momentous hype spun by their particular sect or apologetics) they mentally break as they hit the floor of reality.

What is interesting here is that as evangelical Christianity races about to apologetically pump sticks of the faithful to regain lost spiritual gyroscopic energy, Christianity is itself changing or evolving as the spiritual realm moves closer to bridge the gap between it and the secular world (see my post on : The Fabrication of Religious “Truth”).

But in the world of faith, Christianity has an apologetic explanation. From the Protestant perspective, those souls who are able to ignore the secular world (either thought denial or some form of so-called Scriptural Separation) are usually labeled Calvinist. Those who wobble in their faith and mentally break on the floor of secular reality are considered as either “never saved” or, as the followers of Jacobus Arminius would put it: “They lost their salvation”. But at the very least, when the Christian mind is no long able to support the real conflict between the dual spiritual and secular mental perspectives, the saved soul is cited as “having lost the joy of their salvation”.

It is in just such a world and a decade after the death of one the major spiritual pillars and plate spinners known as Mother Teresa (set on a fast track for Catholic sainthood) that we will find many more spirituals plates began to wobble and fall. Though Mother Teresa was heralded by both Catholics and Protestants as a spiritual giant, her letters reveal a soul tormented by doubt of the divine to the point where she began to sound in like a “neo-atheist”.

In the end, this major spiritual plate spinner privately confessed that she came to accept and love her “godless spiritual darkness”.

God Limits Himself

17 comments

This argument is intended to provide the warrant (underlying principle) for the Atheist argument that the Problem of Evil negates a perfectly Just, Moral, Benevolent, Good, etcetera, God. It intends to show that the principle or Warrant comes from God himself. This is the first in a series of articles that create a complex argument against the existence of the Christian God.

It is believed that the bible is revelation from god. 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". In the bible, if he has not authored it himself, he has at least approved of being labeled as Good, Just, Merciful, Reasonable and Trustworthy among other things. Since God has approved of this to be said about himself, he implicitly agrees to behave that way. These are his limitations to his behavior. For example a trustworthy person will act in a way that supports that characteristic and is prohibited from acting in ways that negate the trustworthy characteristic. They are limited by their commitment to be trustworthy.

Goodness, Justice, Morality, Mercy and Reasonableness have a meaning and have characteristics that are more or less consistent between languages such as hebrew, Greek and English, to name a few. So If God has approved of these labels being applied to him, he has implicitly agreed to behave in a way that supports those characteristics. He has in effect limited his own behavior to comply with his self-proclaimed characteristics. If he is trustworthy, he will behave in a way that supports that characteristic. If he is reasonable, he will act in way that supports that characteristic.

Morality has meaning to us, and God has agreed to be Moral, therefore in order to appear Moral to us he must agree to behave in a way that doesn't violate enough moral principles to negate that characteristic.

- God is moral.
- the set of morality as understood by humans contains a set, or subset of moral principles.
- God has properties similar to the set of human moral principles.
- We say god is moral because we compare him to the set of principles comprising the set of morality. Otherwise we have no basis for the comparison.

So now if pick a valid principle out of the set of morality, and see if it can be compared to god, this should be a valid test of Gods similarity to the set of morality that we are comparing him to.

Additionally let’s add these qualifiers.
- We are made in gods image,
- God loved us so much that he have his only son so that none should perish

So how moral is god? How many of our characteristics of morality does god possess? And if we make a list of moral principles, and we compare it to god’s behavior can we come up with a value of "how moral is god when compared to our set of moral values"?

Then if we say that some principles in our set are "universal morals" I'd be willing to bet I could get a consensus that god violates some of those "universal moral" principles. A lot of them have been written about here on DC.

If god Violates a Moral principle he becomes less moral. This affects his trustworthiness in a negative direction.

If we say that it is reasonable to impose this set of morals on a human, and we say that god is moral, then we can say in some respect it should be valid to impose this set of morals on god. If we can't, then saying that god is moral is meaningless, especially, perfectly moral. So if humans cannot possibly be more moral than god, then God must meet or beat any expectations that we can place on a human. For example, If we say that a human is deficient in morality for condoning slavery, then if god does not at least meet that expectation, then he is deficient as well, unless we can say that violating this principle is not an indicator of a violation of this principle or any shortcoming of morality.

On what grounds does god not need to meet this expectation? On what grounds do people need to this expectation? If people need to meet this expectation and god meets or beats our expectations of morality, then he should be expected to do it to. Not just because I say so, but because it is consistent with what he has approved of to be said about himself, of which he says about himself, should be trustworthy.


Do We Want Religion Taught in Our Schools?

19 comments
Penn & Teller Creationism Bullshit

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Daniel C. Dennett has argued that religion should be taught in the public schools. What he proposes is that a teacher should first offer a balanced survey of the various religions and then have the freedom to argue for his particular religious, or non-religious viewpoint. His proposal is to introduce a reasonable discussion of religion into the public classrooms. I suspect the reason is because he thinks that in doing so our children will be introduced to other religious viewpoints, it will require students to actually think about and defend their views, and eventually it will produce doubt into these children who may only be hearing one particular viewpoint from their respective parents and churches. It's an interesting and intriguing proposal, which is what European public schools already allow.

In the Penn & Teller video Christians are arguing the same thing with respect to the evidence for creation over evolution. They want teachers to present both sides of the issue. They think Intelligent Design will win the argument. What do you think of these two proposals? Again, I'm intrigued by them both, primarily because I don't think religious viewpoints will win these debates.

Results From Our Poll on Celebrating the Holidays

5 comments

What do you make of them? Here they are...

I celebrate Winter Solstice: 12 (5%)

I celebrate the birth of Jesus: 56 (27%)

I celebrate being with family and friends: 116 (56%)

I don't celebrate it much at all: 38 (18%)

They add up to more than 100% because people could choose more than one option.

The Fabrication of Religious “Truth”

8 comments

Truth in religion – especially Christianity- is defined in terms of Dogma. Thus, any attempt to discuss truth in the area of ecclesiastical logic must be done in the terms of Dogma. Accordingly, “The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church” defines dogma as “a religious truth established by Divine Revelation and defined by the Church.”


Within the context of the above definition, we note that religious truth or dogma is subjectively controlled as well having limitations by asking just what is “Divine Revelation” and just how this choice of “Revelation” is “define by the (or which) Church”. Accordingly, the question of religious truth is begged by circular reasoning into an area which can be highly sectarian.

Christian history of doctrine reveals a progressive formulation and reformulation of dogmas set forth by the great church councils such as the First Council of Nicaea (325 CE) as expressed in the Nicene Creed to defend the established or Orthodox Faith against the Arians and to again to try and finalized dogma in the Catholic tradition with Vatican II (ending in 1965). Thus, Christian truth was now defined on one level by western Orthodoxy (that is in the Catholic tradition) and any deviation from this set faith or “truth” could have one labeled as a heretic, infidel or an apostate with punishment ranging from excommunication to death.

Christian dogmatic truth has remained set in orthodoxy until external objectivity caused it to admit that its religious truth as “defined by the Church” when its “Divine Revelation” was forced to admit defeat when faced with new empirical facts. As such, the old dogma of a mythical Biblical three tier cosmos with its geocentric view of the universe was finally replaced as truth almost 400 years latter when Pope John Paul II officially vindicated Galileo in 1995.

In the same vein, the Southern Baptist formalize their dogma of slavery in the antebellum South in1841 on the correct teaching of the New Testament (especially the Pauline Epistles) only to repudiate this very Biblical dogma officially on June 20 1995 when the Baptist leadership voted in a formal “Declaration of Repentance”.

When the “Correct” or Orthodox Tradition can not agree on dogma as derived from “Divine Revelation” (as seen today in the west’s dogma of the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory), then a split occurs in between east and west resulting when the Pope of Rome excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople who, himself, likewise returned the favor in 1054.

Even within the Bible itself, there is no divine prohibition on the outright fabrication of scripture. For example, the Book of Isaiah has at least 4 authors all creating different and new concepts of God under the accepted name of Isaiah most notably in the disconnect between the end of chapter 39 and the start of chapter 40.

During the so-called “Intertestamental Period” (a theological term to devalue non-canonized scripture) was filled with authors trying to shape theology and world views by writing under famous names from the Hebrew Bible such as Enoch, Adam and Eve or 27 other Biblical characters. Such scriptures fabricated under the names of famous characters from the “First Testament” were also accepted as factual by writings canonized in the New Testament such as Peter and Jude (For an excellent discussion on this matter see: The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Prolegomena for the Study of Christian Origins, by James H. Charlesworth)

Likewise, the New Testament has epistles written under Paul’s name to legitimize new theological truths and gain church order. With such known and out of control fabrications happening to existing texts (along with the creation of new texts under a famous name) the writer of the Book of Revelation invoked a cruse from God on anyone planning on tampering with his work (Rev. 22: 18 -19).

Finally, to show just how religious truth can be fabricated and propagated by an ancient and established orthodox Christian tradition, I would like to recount my situation with the Orthodox Church in Greenville, S.C.: Saint George Greek Orthodox Church.

While attending its annual Greek festival, I went inside to get an introduction to the Greek Orthodox Church and its icons. As I entered, I was given a printed brief history which included the statement that the Greek Orthodox tradition was the TRUE Christian Church established by Jesus himself.

On the wall in the church is a large icon mural of a knight on a white horse who had just slain a dragon. The guide told the visitors that the icon depicted Saint George as a righteous knight who killed a dragon (a creature pictured with bat wings and a snake like neck and head) who had terrorized a village for a number of years. Thus, by killing the evil dragon, George became a Saint and he is honored with this event by the name of this church: Saint George Greek Orthodox Church.

After thinking about this dogma as depicted in one of their holy icons, I decided to call
Saint George Greek Orthodox Church and ask if it was a fact that dragons really existed.
The church’s secretary told me she would have the priest (Father Tom) call to explain the icon.

The phone rang one morning and it was the orthodox priest (Father Tom) from St. George Church who seemed to have been given the impression that I was a potential member.

In short, after a few formalities, the text of the conversation went something as follows:

Harry: Could you tell me about Saint George Killing the dragon.

Father Tom basically recounted what the church guide told me and the other visitors.

Harry: So there were real dragons that flew and could terrorize a medieval village?

Father Tom: Well, the dragon which was killed was in reality Satan and by killing Satan, George freed the village from its destruction.

Harry: So Satan is now dead?

Father Tom: No, Satan is not dead! St. George killed the dragon just as the icon depicts.

Harry: So, again, were there real dragons that flew and could terrorize a medieval villages?

Father Tom: (now getting angry) Who are you? You are not a Greek Orthodox are you?

Harry: No (I decided it was best not to tell him I was an Atheist).

Father Tom: I’ll tell you one thing. You and the rest of you so-called Christians will stand before Christ at the judgment and there you WILL give an account on just why you are not Greek Orthodox.

With that he hung up and I knew no more about the matter of dragons and the icon than before he called.

In the end, I had questioned a divine dogma. When I pushed the point of the fabrication of religious “Truth”, I was given the wrath of God as a future judgment for my soul. And that's par for the course!

God Hates Us All

73 comments

God As Accessory To Child Abduction

85 comments

Many people are gathered this season participating in the Christmas Holiday. They share the story of Jesus born in the manger, being held and cuddled by his mother and adored by all his visitors, angels and animals. Children act out the story in churches. Some say that christmas is for the children. These are the children that we see. But every season, there are children that we don't see. Children that are missing. Children that have disappeared and we can only hope that nothing bad has happened to them. Lets say that Tom saw a child being abducted but has decided not to get involved. Is Tom culpable of being an Accessory to the Crime? Is there any obligation in principle for Tom to report this Crime? Tom is an accessory to the Crime. There is at least a legal principle for him to report the crime. Now lets change one word in our scenario and see what happens.

Lets say that God saw a child being abducted but has decided not to get involved. Is God culpable of being an Accessory to the Crime? Is there any obligation in principle for God to report this Crime? God is an accessory to the Crime. There is at least a legal principle for him to report the crime.

Wikipedia - Accessory

In some jurisdictions, an accessory is distinguished from an accomplice, who normally is present at the crime and participates in some way. An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way, or simply by failing to report the crime to proper authority. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.

Here is a link to Child Find of America

When they went missing, God was there in his omniscience, omnipotence, omni-benevolence and his "perfect" Justice. Christians can lay down piles of Rhetoric about God valuing Freewill so much that the he won't interfere with the criminals act, but since this is the case, then he values the criminals freewill more and the subsequent act of the criminal more than the freewill of the victim or the safety of the victim, whom in the context of this article are children.

God Violates the very sound principle of reporting a crime when one has knowledge of it. God is Guilty as accessory to crimes associated with missing children.

So as you are looking at baby Jesus laying in the manger and basking in the joy that your children bring you as they sing, play and open their christmas presents in wide-eyed wonder, think about those children that have had their freewill violated and are missing today. Pray God brings them back home tonight, then lets see how many come back home tonight.

Christ Mass

18 comments

People get offended when "Christmas" is abreviated as "x-mas." Sounds sinister, no?

But I propose the name "Christ-X" - because it is the second part that is so horrific.

What is a "mass?" In the "mass," the "priests" take bread and wine and claim that they turn it into the ACTUAL BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS THE CARPENTER TURNED PROPHET!

I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP!!!!

Mass? Christ-mass? I should think that any self-respecting Protestant should find the word offensive! But these days, Christians no longer kill eachother over issues of "transubstantiation versus consubstantiation" - those days are apparently behind us....

AS LONG AS YOU BELIEVE THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY... (an unbiblical idea) then you are IN THE CLUB!

Never mind that the Magi are said to have read the stars to find Jesus... never mind that a star allegedly parked over a crib without so much as singing the baby therein...

Christmas is the celebration of the long reach of an emperor named Constantine... all else is irrelvant.

Christians partake of pagan rituals (lighting up trees, etc) and talk about the "real meaning of Christmas.." - hah!

While atheists enjoy the festivities of a Christian celebration with wild abandonment...

Ah, it is a strange time...

http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Another One Bites the Dust...er, Leaves the Fold

26 comments

Here's Brian Green's testimony from two emails sent to me [Used with permission]:

The first one:

I'm a newly deconverted christian who just wanted to thank you for your book and blog which have greatly helped me see the world for what it is (and isn't). It's very freeing not being bound to a restricting and honestly irrational way of life.

Thanks from a fan!

Brian Green

ps: looking forward to the release of your new book!

The second one:
I was born into a Christian home and was born again and began taking my faith seriously after my daughter was born. There were always a few things that didn't seem to make sense, such as why is belief regional (where you live mostly determines how you will believe), and if there is a holy spirit why were the mature Christians no more gifted with the 'fruits of the spirit' than anyone else. In fact the ministry personnel are the worst (my wife works for a church).

So because of these doubts I was really into apologetics and have many books but all of them are from Christian authors. I never thought enough to read any opposing literature. That was until I had a crisis in my marriage and the lack of help and true compassion from our church friends (not unlike your story) that caused me to truly doubt and look elsewhere.

That's when I got your book and was blown away! I couldn't believe the evidence. There were other gods who died and rose again? And the Bible is very inconsistent, which of course was never covered in church. Other books I've read that helped are Dan Barkers Losing Faith in Faith and Gary Lenaires An Infidel Manifesto. These all made so much sense when reading, as opposed to the Christian books that I needed a road map to follow the logic.

This has all happened within the last year and I feel better about myself and my life than ever before. My wife is still a Christian but clearly is seeing my point and I believe she is very close.

Thanks again I read DC every day!

Ex-seminarian (& student of Dembski) Leaves the Fold

11 comments

Is it just me or does it seem that many are leaving the fold? His name is Gabe. This is what he wrote:

I broke free from Christian fundamentalism in April 2006. I was a third year student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. This seminary is considered by many to be the intellectual hub of evangelical seminaries. The president of the seminary, Dr. Albert Mohler, has been called "the leading intellectual voice for evangelicals in America." He has been a frequent guest on Larry King Live, debating controversial topics such as gay marriage, abortion, religious tolerance, etc. Dr. William Dembski also teaches at the seminary, who is widely considered the world's leading proponent of Intelligent Design. Dr. Dembski was my professor in the fall semester of 2005.

But with one year left to complete a Masters of Divinity in Theology, I could no longer ignore the questions that were piling up in my mind. My questions and doubts troubled me to the point that I simply could no longer preach and teach something that I wasn't sure if believed any longer. I had become a member of a Southern Baptist church almost a year earlier. I absolutely loved this church, and all three pastors were also students at the seminary. The pastor was a Ph.D student, so I really enjoyed his sermons because they were really "deep" theologically. So when I informed them of my decision to leave the faith, you can imagine their reaction! Shortly after hearing of my decision, they held a Wednesday night service to excommunicate me from the church and "deliver my soul over to satan for the destruction of my flesh and the eternal flames of hell." Here is the email correspondence that took place after I informed them of my decision to leave the faith. Hope you enjoy:

What you Read is What you Get: Taking the Gospel Statements of Jesus at Face Value.

17 comments

If the simple one sentence statements of Jesus (as recorded in the four Gospel accounts) can not be taken at face value, the question must be asked: What good are they? Moreover, at just what point are these clear and simple statements (if not taken at face value) make Jesus as a liar?

Lets look at a well know example; a situation where Jesus makes such a clear and simple statements when eating and drinking with his disciples before his death as recorded in all four Gospel accounts: Matt. 26: 26-29 = Mark 14: 22 -25 = Luke 22: 15 – 20 and John 6: 51 – 58:

Of the bread Jesus emphatically states: “This is my body.”
Of the wine Jesus emphatically states: “This is my blood.”

These two statements are not given either as parables or as symbols; they are (as understood in grammatical terms), used as simple demonstrative limiting adjective sentences of possession. Thus, Jesus’ statements are clear and simple; no parables or symbols mentioned or implied.

Now before Protestant Christians claim that Jesus did not know what he was talking about and that he MUST be understood as using metaphors or hyperboles, let see just how the oldest Christian Church – the Roman Catholic Church – understands these Gospel statements when used doing the consecration of the Eucharist as defined at a major church council:

The Council of Trent declared subject to the ecclesiastical penalty of anathema anyone who "denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue" and anyone who "saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".

Furthermore, if the Catholic dogma is indeed just plainly mistaken and simply wrong in its understanding of Jesus (as I’m sure many non-Catholics Protestants are sure to argue in their forth coming comments) then - may I ask - just where and just when are the terms Heaven, Hell and Salvation not to be understood as simple metaphors, hyperboles or parables? Or, to put it another way, at what point does Jesus make logical sense for the simple believer who wants to take him at his word?

Fruit Of The Spirit And The Problem Of The Heap

56 comments

This article discusses the Flawed Principle of identifying Christians by their outward characteristics.
The problem of the heap, sometimes called the problem of the Beard is stated something like this. When you drop one grain of sand on another, when do you have a heap? Or if a man lets his facial hair grow out when do you call it a beard?

The fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance. They are the characteristics that sum up the nine visible attributes of a true Christian life. That's a nice pile of Rhetoric and very appealing to the ego and very convincing if we don't put much thought into it. But each of these in themselves suffer from the problem of the heap as much as they all do together.

Does everyone agree on exactly what love is? When is a person experiencing Joy? What if they drift out of Joy into happiness or just apathy? How much suffering is long-suffering? How much is gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance? If we say that these only apply to Christians, do we really believe that? Aren't there people out there that are not Christians that exhibit these? I think I exhibit them, and some Christian thinkers have admitted their crises in faith. How much faith do they have? Enough to keep their positions that's for sure.

What is the difference between them and me? In some cases they are dishonest to themselves, and sometimes to others, at least I don't profess to be a Christian. I would say that if I went back to church and avoided talking about God, nodded my head and smiled politely in a tolerant politically correct kind of way, no one would know the difference. My fruits would look fine to them.

In any case, if Christians make up a third of the population of the world, and these characteristics can be applied to all categories of people, then the defining characteristic must be Faith because in this context, it would be faith in God. So what we really mean to say is that "you will know them because they profess a belief in Jesus".

So now, back to the heap, how much faith in Jesus is enough? And additionally how much faith in Jesus and how much of any of the rest of the fruits are enough? It seems to me that I could disqualify most of the Christians in any given church I walk into using this criteria. So if those that have enough fruit to be called Christians are few, and you don't know how much is enough, then you don't really know if you are leading a true christian life or not.

All this uncertainty about being a 'true Christian' and not appearing like a Christian to other Christians seems to defy reason. I think we could say that using these criteria is meaningless and I wonder, with all things being equal, why be a Christian? Why participate in the protocol? Most Christians in that 30% probably aren't leading a truly Christian life and as a result are as lost as I am. Its a narrow road, many are called but few are taken, is that how it goes? So of the billions of people on the planet since god allegedly made himself known, less than 30% are chosen. What is the point in that? That's a lot of needless suffering for someone to permit, when he set the conditions ahead of time and knew the outcome before he started. That sounds like predestination to me, and in that case, no matter what you do, you are either saved or not, your name is in the book of life or not. So how much is enough, and are you really saved or do you just think you are? Would another Christian say you are a real Christian? How do they know? By your fruits? But don't your fruits seem fine to you? How do they look to your friends?

Yet Another Unpleasant Truth

36 comments


Note: “Mrs. Jane Ortega” and “Michael Ortega” mentioned below are real people whom I have come to know and been corresponding—only their names have been changed to protect their identities. And, uh…well, the letter pretty much explains the rest…


“Dear Mrs. Ortega,

I hope this email finds you doing well. Being that we have been acquainted with each other for some time now, and being that we have had the opportunity to look at the academic side of the problem of evil, I wanted to offer a finishing piece to “drive home,” as it were, what has been discussed.

Please understand that the things I will mention are not intended to be insulting or hurtful, but are to make clear to you that you have not taken to heart what we are debating. The problem of evil is an emotional argument, as well as a logical argument, and that is why the best Christian apologists in the world keep coming back to reconsider it. When one seeks to avoid the logical force of the problem, they are confronted with the emotional discomfort created by it, and this makes them reconsider the logical force of it once again. This is always the situation when people say the problem of evil “doesn’t affect” (your words) them. Like a sleeping pill, the problem hasn’t affected you because you haven’t digested it yet!

As you know, I met your son Michael at the bus station. That put me in touch with you, which, of course, I deem a good thing. But the unfortunate circumstance of your son is not a good thing. It is a terrible thing.

Each time I see him I think to myself how hard it must have been for you to raise a kid like that, and for forty-two years straight, be reminded of the fact that he will never be a normal man, that he will never pay his own bills, and that his brain will never stop requiring a handful of special pills everyday just to keep him out of trouble with the law. He will never get married and bring you grandchildren. He will never hold down a normal job or live in so much as a budget-sized apartment by himself. He will never host a thanksgiving dinner for the family, will never tend to his share of the chores, or even clean his own clothes. I deeply feel for you, and although, right about now you’re probably preparing to tell me how much of a joy and a gift from God you consider your son to be, even with all the heartache that raising a severely bi-polar/schizophrenic can be, I’m here to tell you no less forcefully that you don’t deserve it.

You don’t deserve any of this. You are a good woman, a wonderful person, and you deserved to get a son who would carry on your legacy, who would take care of you in your older years. But you don’t have that. Instead, your son has given you a bruised lip and broken furniture on more than one occasion. Your son consumed Palmolive dish soap and thumbtacks as a means to end his life earlier this year. Someone clueless enough to try and kill himself in a manner such as this is worthy of the utmost pity. That alone is a fountain of sadness. Your son has been arrested a great many times, and each time, could not make a single coherent statement in his defense. These are monumentally sad facts that I know you are aware of, but there is a reason for why I am reminding you of them—and I think you know that reason.

I want to tell you what your boy said to me the other day. I was standing guard in the bus terminal as usual when he approached me and immediately began to carry on about how cruel you were to him as a child, throwing him in snake pits and whipping him with thorns from rose bushes. As he stood in my face, twitching madly, I gently moved him out of my personal space and began for the fourth time this week to assure him that you did none of those things to him, that it was all in his mind. Failing to get through to him, I tried to convince him that even if he still feels that way about you that he should try and just move on with his life, and not go around telling complete strangers about it and having them come to me and ask to have him removed from the facility because he won’t leave them alone.

I could tell by looking into his distant eyes that he comprehended not a word I said. He went right on accusing you and the government of poisoning him with bitter herbs and by putting deadly sound waves in the Rod Stewart songs he likes to listen to. It’s so sad to see him walking around like that, in a never-clearing fog of paranoia and disorientation. I had to ask him to leave the station again a few days ago (but I think I already told you that the other day).

I know you love him and try to hug him before he goes to pushing you back away from him at your weekly monitored meetings. In tears, you assure him you love him, but it does no good. You do love him, and you always will, and no one’s saying you shouldn’t, but I’ve seen how you break down every time you are around him. It crushes you to see him in such pain and not be able to do anything about it or get close to him. That must hurt in a way that only a mother can know. He’s such a handsome man too—if only he had a normal mind.

Frankly, if your son is a gift from God, then God doesn’t think much of you at all. If such a higher power exists, he hates you or else couldn’t care less about you; there’s simply no other way of putting it. Now I don’t find it sound to believe that a deity hates you or loves you. You deserve so much better, but unfortunately, there is no God who will do you better.

For the last four or five conversations, we have been discussing the problem of evil, and in that time, you have acquitted your God of all charges of cruelty and evil. I would ask that you keep deliberating on this, and when you are ready, look your son in the eyes the next time you see him and ask yourself: “Do I really and truly deserve this?” What does your heart of hearts tell you? The only way the problem of evil can be ignored is when the problem is someone else’s, but when the problem becomes your own, it is impossible to ignore.

You are a very strong person, Jane, so strong that you have been able to take in stride and accept what would be too much for some people. Maybe you will one day be strong enough to accept yet another unpleasant truth.

Best regards,

(JH)”






Creationist Fatally Stabs Evolutionist

27 comments

The life of a Scottish backpacker and Evolutionist was cut short by an English Fundamentalist Christian Creationist. The Creationist took a stab at dissecting the evolutionists argument earlier in the evening, however, failed by his rapier wit, the Creationist decided to drive his point home the only way he could. Evolutionists everywhere should be more cautious as the the debate is getting dicier as time goes on.
Link

A bizarre row about evolution versus creationism led to an English backpacker fatally stabbing a Scottish backpacker during a fruit-picking trip to earn money for their travels.

Alexander York, 33, from Essex, was sentenced to a maximum of five years in jail yesterday for the manslaughter of Rudi Boa, 28, a biomedical student from Inverness.

Honor the Child - a different take on Christmas

3 comments


Honor the Child
by Marlene Winell, Ph.D.

The Christmas season is often busy and complicated with families and schedules and special events. There are standard criticisms of materialism and holiday angst. Yet at the center of it all there is a powerful image that speaks to all of us – the Child. It’s fascinating to me that once a year so many people stop everything, or at least pause, to acknowledge a Child.

But who is this Child of Christmas and why does the image have such power? We have religious and secular interpretations, and I would like to suggest a third – a soulful interpretation.

For Christians, this is a specific Child, the baby Jesus, entering the world to be its savior. This is why the angels sing and the wise men visit. God has at last fulfilled his promise, and there is rejoicing.

For other people, not Christian, the Christ Child still represents hope and renewal. As with the solstice and the new year, the Child symbolizes newness and birth, the promise of fresh life. The Christmas tree also has this idea of new life. As such, the holiday still has meaning and reason for celebration.

These reasons are significant and important to remember in the context of all the commercialism of the season, of course. But I think there is much more to appreciate about the Child. This is not a child that will grow up to save the world. In history as we know it, Jesus Christ did not fulfill messianic predictions. Some Christians will say that Christ rules a heavenly kingdom of the heart, and is still coming to rule the earth. Perhaps. But the focus on someone coming to rescue us is a mistake, in my opinion. (Other Christians will say that he came to teach us how to save ourselves--a lesson we still need to learn.)

The view of the Child as symbol of hope and life is a valid alternative view embraced by many at this time of year. Our world is so weary with struggles, we all need the healing force of hope. If the image of a newborn baby gives us encouragement, and draws us together with gentle love in our families, that is certainly a good thing. “Peace on Earth,” is a welcome message on holiday greeting cards.

But the Child archetype connects to each of us in a personal way as well. We were all children once and we can perhaps remember the innocence and freedom. It’s good to ask ourselves whether we still know how to laugh and enjoy life. The image of a baby instinctively raises questions, and brings up feelings.

On the deepest level, the Child connects to matters of the soul. By this I mean essence – the way we actually experience being alive. This is not the Christ child or just a symbol of hope -- this is the Original Child that is in each of us. This is the Child we all know is still present but may be lost or buried. Our life patterns, our “personalities,” our many roles, our anxieties, our regrets, our plans, our endless thoughts, all conspire to distance us from who we once were – infants with magical capability for presence and joy.

The author of the paper, “The Infant as Reflection of Soul,” William Schafer, says “Babies by their very existence call us back to something we all sense we have lost. They do not enchant us simply because they are ‘cute.’” He says infants frequently hint that they are capable of experiences we no longer commonly enjoy – original experiences of energy, openness, and joy. In early infancy, Schafer says, these are profoundly essential human spiritual experiences. The pure, calm awareness of a baby is free of internal commentary, judgment, comparison, fear, or desire.

Interestingly, in the spiritual Balinese culture, babies are not allowed to touch the ground for the first year of life. They are considered closer to God than adults. In any culture, one only needs to look into an infant’s eyes to see a being that is absolutely in the present, that has no agenda whatsoever, that is open to the simple miracle of being alive. This delight is pure and plain in a smile, a look, a wriggle of total energy. The ego has not emerged; there is just being. Worries about the past and concerns for the future do not exist; the moment is timeless, endless. In Schafer’s terms, infant joy of this kind is the natural, inevitable consequence of presence.

In contrast, adults experience split-second judgments that erode the capacity for joy. If we have a bad experience, we can’t wait for it to end. If we have a good one, we want more of it and we worry that it might stop. Either way, joy—the sense of being open and drawn to our actual experience in wonder and curiosity without fear or repulsion—is veiled. We end up living lives in which most of our time is spent wanting to be in some other moment than the present one. The quality of every moment is constantly being judged and compared with something past or some imagined way that it should be.

Intuitively, we have some awareness of this dilemma. As babies learn to navigate the world, we watch them and marvel at their “development,” but gradually we see them become like us as they grow up, industrious and goal-oriented, forgetting their pure state of just being instead of doing. It seems like an endless cycle.

But if we choose, we can learn from infants. We need to see them with new eyes and let them be our teachers. We can let them remind us of what we have lost and teach us again to be purposefully and mindfully present and joyful. We can learn from the way they respond with awareness to others.

When new parents talk about holding a newborn, they talk of a “miracle” with overwhelming feelings. Other people can have the same feelings about a baby, and there is a tug on something deep within. What is that? This is your core, your Original Child, your personal manifestation of the archetype, alive deep inside. And part of the archetype of the Child is the capability of great transformation.

But the Child is quiet and fragile. The experience of deep contact depends on connecting to that Child within. And it is our hectic lives with layers of coping, achieving, struggling, or succeeding that hinder the knowledge of the Child from reaching us. And ironically it is the Christmas season that is full of too much hustle and bustle. We lose the connection, and in the midst of parties and presents, we feel lonely and unsupported.

And perhaps there is another good reason why feelings are raw at this time of year; we aren’t just busy. It could be that the image of the Christmas Child, in addition to the childlikeness of the ornaments, cookies, and presents, evokes the knowledge we all have, albeit below awareness, that we are still children at heart. As adults, this includes the needs and the wounds that we have acquired. Even Carl Rogers, after a lifetime of studying psychotherapy, said “there are no grown-ups.”

But the Divine Child part of the archetype is the one that calls to us at this time of year. Each of us personally is drawn to hope and renewal. Each of us is still innocent, life-loving, and capable of the soulfulness we see in infants’ eyes.

So this season, let’s consider what it might mean to honor the Child – first of all in ourselves, and then in each other. We can slow down and look around. We can be gentle. We can remember that we are all connected. We can watch our adult habit of having expectations and practice appreciating what actually is. We can allow ourselves to feel joy for no reason. What else this might include I don’t know, but I suspect it could be quite different, and quite magical. For me, I plan to cherish every opportunity to look into the eyes of a young Child. I expect I will learn something I can use when I look out of my own Child eyes. I will practice delight.

Reference: Schafer, W. (2004). The infant as reflection of soul: The time before there was a self. Journal of Zero to Three. National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families, 24: 3, pp. 5-8.

Marlene Winell, Ph.D. is a psychologist and consultant in the San Francisco Bay Area who works with people recovering from harmful religious experience. She is the author of Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving Their Religion. See www.marlenewinell.net for services and events.

Bill Ross - Deconversion Story

20 comments

Hi, my handle is WoundedEgo but my name is Bill Ross... this is me with my family.

John has graciously invited me to contribute to his blog, and suggested I begin with my deconversion story, and so I shall...

Unfortunately, being as cerebral as I am, the story will not involve a car chase, but I'll try not to bore...

There is a wonderful scene in one of the Wallace and Gromit stories where Gromit sits in jail doing a jigsaw puzzle. As he places the last piece in the puzzle, he realizes that the puzzle has a personal message for him - he will be leaving jail tonight via a breakout!

This was my experience. I pondered the Bible for many, many years, trying to discover its central themes that would tie the whole thing together and unlock its cryptic design. As soon as I did so, I realized that it would not serve as my own mental framework.

I quote this from the introduction to my book, Bible Shockers!:

My lovely wife of twenty something years is an extremely capable person with a wide range of interests. She might be spending her day absorbed in an art project with the younger children, having some coffee or tea with friends or riding her bicycle up to the video store to see if they have anything new along the lines of Stephen King, or if not, something with some gut wrenching human relationships. She seldom thinks about the Bible. I, on the other hand, like many people, have had a long fascination with the Bible and have often neglected other important activities in order to understand some difficult passage or other. I spent many years as a Christian, treating the book as Protestant Christians are wont to do:

* As a vehicle of magic communication from God to me
* To reinforce the Catholic/Protestant traditions I had been taught

I have spent many more years approaching the text as an ancient religious text, driven to deeply understand as one would understand any other ancient religious text. The reasons I moved from reading the Bible as a vehicle of magic communication from deities, and from seeking proof texts for my faith, to methodical objective study were twofold. First of all, I was challenged by a passage in the Bible:

Hebrews 12:27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

As I meditated on that passage I began to think to myself that rather than try to "prop up" my beliefs with the Bible, what if I began to see which ones I could knock over? Any that would not knock over were solid and I would know exactly why, but any that yielded were unreliable and could safely be discarded. All of my beliefs were quickly exposed as imposters.

Magic communication had failed me. I found that I received confusing, conflicting messages and silly ideas. I found I was insecure and misled by the thoughts that seemed to come from the deity but were just notions. Most troubling was the see-saw of alarm versus confidence that I found myself on. For example, one day I might read some condemning passage of scripture and find myself feeling, and believing myself to be, condemned because of my sins. The next day I would read a passage of assurances and feel, and believe myself to be, in favor. I found I could not really be secure about anything because my subjective moods often dictated my interpretation of the Bible as it concerned my personal relations. I needed to know the objective criteria for my relationship to God.

What I hoped to find was an understanding of God and of the Bible. What I actually found was shock and awe. What I found was that I had not understood the text at all, and that to an alarming extent, the ideas that I had been spoon fed were nasty viruses of misinformation. When I finally understood the Bible, I realized it was not magic, divine or credible.

*****

I look forward to contributing...

Bill Ross
"Sigh, I miss my imaginary friend...http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Father Christmas and Yule!

4 comments
Christmas is such an amazing time. Christians celebrate the birth of Christ, using pagan symbols, and complain about how everybody ignores the true meaning of Christmas. Atheists enjoy the pagan and social festivities, and rightfully so. Happy Yule! Agnostics enjoy the wassail, and some don't recognize Christmas at all. Put them in the boat with the folks over at the United Church of God...Happy Grinch-mas! But Brother Crow wishes everybody a Merry Christmas and a brave new year. All anguish, pain and sadness leave your heart and may your road be clear. My Christmas gift to all - posters, comment-makers, and John himself - is what I think is the greatest Christmas song in contemporary music, a song that reminds me why I deconverted...yet still enjoy this awesome day of Yule. So,be it heaven or hell - the Christmas we get we deserve! (and forgive the video...it's old and cheesy, but still the best!)