A God Driven by Blood and Death: Human Sacrifice and the Slaughter of Christ

18 comments
(I wish to thank Robert B for listing all the many references to human sacrifice in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible as he did in an earlier comment to a post. Great work Robert! However, for time’s sake, I have limited my study mainly to the books of Genesis and Joshua.)

I. The Primitive Epic

A. Yahweh Battles the Gods of Nature and the Hymn of His Annual Enthronement in the Temple as Warrior-King

A description of one of the ancient annual fall enthronement is found in the Hebrew poem of Psalm 24: 7 -10:

Lift up your heads, O Gates, And be lifted up, O ancient doors!

That the King of glory may come in!
Who is the King of Glory?
Yahweh strong and mighty,
Yahweh mighty in battle.

Lift up your heads, O Gates,
And lift them up, O ancient doors,
That the King of glory may come in!
Who is this King of glory?
Yahweh of Heaven, He is the King of Glory.

(Note: since the Hebrew “יהוה” is rendered into English as “the Lord”, I have used the personal name of the deity “Yahweh” instead. The problem of equating Yahweh with the universal theistic term θεός / God in the New Testament is a major problem I plan to address on a future post.)



One of the best Sitz im Leben of this ancient poem is given by Frank Cross:

“We may see reflected in this liturgy the reenactment of the victory of Yahweh in the primordial battle and his enthronement in the divine council or, better, in his newly built (cosmic) temple.
Such an interpretation assumes a Canaanite myth-and-ritual pattern standing behind the Israelite rite reflected in the psalm. Yamm, deified Sea, claimed kingship among the gods. The council of the gods assembled and, told of Yamm’s intentions to size the kingship and take Ba’l captive, made no protest. They were cowed and despairing, sitting with heads bowed to their knees. Ba’l rases and rebukes the divine assembly, and goes forth to war. In the (cosmogonic) battle he is victorious, and he returns to take up kingship (CTA 2 & 4). Presumably he returned to the assembled gods and appeared in glory, and the divine assembly rejoiced. In a later text (CTA 4) Ba’l’s temple, symbolic of his new sovereignty, is completed, and the gods sit at banquet celebrating. Ba’l is king.
Similarly, in Tablet VI of the Babylonian Creation Epic, Marduk, after battling the primordial ocean, Tiamat, and creating the universe out of her carcass, receives from the gods a newly constructed temple where the gods sit at banquet celebrating his kingship. The Babylonian account of creation in the Enuma elis is not too remote a parallel since there is some evidence, collected by Thorkild Jacobsen (The Battle Between Marduk and Tiamat” JAOS, 88 (1968), 104 - 108) that the battle with the dragon Ocean is West Semitic in origin.” The Divine Warrior” in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel by Frank M. Cross (Harvard University Press,1973) p.93.


B. The Warrior-King Yahweh and his Chosen People: The Israelites

Let me begin by stating that of all the ancient Near Eastern texts which we have translated today, the Hebrew god Yahweh is the only deity that keeps a “chosen” race alive so he can lead them and slaughter them as his bi-polar mental state changes a from manic חסד (hesed or loving kindness) to one of depression and rage such a expressed in Numbers 11: 1:

“Now the people became like those who complain of adversity in the hearing of Yahweh; and when Yahweh heard it, His anger was kindled, and the fire of Yahweh burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp.”

This characterization of Yahweh is derived from the nose of a snorting and raging bull. Once Yahweh changes into this murderous deity, Moses must try and reason with him; even offering himself to be consumed as an atonement for sin:

“Now Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families, each man at the doorway of his tent; and the anger of Yahweh was kindled greatly, and Moses was displeased. …So if You are going to deal thus with me, please kill me at once, if I have found favor in Your sight, and do not let me see my wretchedness." (Numbers 11: 10 & 15).

The rage Yahweh can become so great that his consuming thirst for blood and death must be satisfied and, once again, we find this god raging like a bull with a flaming nose from his fierce anger:

“Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before Yahweh, so that the fierce anger of Yahweh may turn away from Israel.’" (Numbers 25: 4)

Yahweh is pictured as an unstable and very abusive adult who just can not understand the short comings of his children and, if this god not controlled or at least reasoned with, he can slaughter the entire human race (women, children, the unborn, along with animals which have none nothing in the way of “sin” as in the flood story (Genesis 8 - 9). Thus, animals and humans are viewed often as equal which carry life in the early accounts of “J” as both can be blamed and both can be sacrificed to stave off Yahweh’s craving for blood and life. (For example, an animal forced into an act of sex with an Israelite must be killed along with the human as Yahweh considers both defiled with sexual sin (Leviticus 20: 15 - 16). Revealed here is the fact that, just as in the story of the “Fall from Eden” with a curse placed on the serpent and the slaughter of all the animals / humans for being evil (Genesis 6: 5 - 7), so too are humans and animals, considered flesh and blood that can be sacrifice to satisfy Yahweh anger as well as his need to feed on the smoke of the burning flesh.)


II. Beginning the Demand for Human Sacrifice: The Story of Cain and Able in the Yahwistic or “J” Account.

With the creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2 in place and the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, the “J” account uses one verse (Genesis 4:1) to tie the lineage of the first humans couple to a section of theology on sacrifice which is more important in the editor’s thinking than how the earth got populated. In fact the epic moves so fast towards the cultic ritual of sacrifice that no sooner is the reader introduced to Eve giving birth, then these two men are now mature adults who, for the first time in Hebrew history, have a presumed knowledge of the Jewish sacrificial system and the theology of the Torah as to why it must be done.

For the general reader in the synagogue or church today, he or she is totally caught off guard by trying to maintain Genesis 3 with the expansion of the population of the earth after the man (Adam) and woman (Eve) are totally alone in the newly created earth / “the land” “הארץ ”, after they are expelled. (see: Richard Hess, “Splitting the Adam: The Usage of Adam in Genesis I - V,” in Studies in the Pentateuch, edited by J. A. Emerton (E.J. Brill, 1990) pp.1-15)

The religious reader of the early Genesis account who believes that Genesis contains the absolute truth on the earth creation and population has often asked: “Where did Cain get his wife?” or “Where did the other people come from who Cain claimed would try to kill him?”

The answer to his problem is that this section of text has nothing to do with the Toledo / generations of the earth by Adam and Eve, their children or their future generations, but is a section dealing with the first and proper way to sacrifice to God. It also tells the religious reader what the diety really wants and, if given it, that a Covenant of protection will be extended to those persons who do give Yahweh (God) blood and the life that is sustained by it in its death.

Although Adam is cursed to be only a tiller of the ground (Genesis 3:17 - 19) Able is introduced as an experienced herdsman who anachronistically offers “the first and best of his flock and their fat portions” (Gen. 4:4) as, again required by the latter Torah. Though both Cain (The Law of First Fruits: Ex. 23:16, 19; 34: 22, 26 Numbers 13:20) and Able bring God their sacrifices as proscribed in in the law of sacrifice (Numbers 18:17) Yahweh chooses the one that requires the taking of life whose fat is to be burnt to fed him on his throne in Heaven via the smoke.

Since the text Abel brought an animal and Cain brought his grain to sacrifice as proscribed under the Law, the Jewish reader, for whom this story was written, would be very familiar with both the law regarding grain and animal sacrifice. However, what is important here to the Priestly writer is that Yahweh chooses Abel’s offering over Cain’s in that the young animal’s blood which carries its life along with its fat portions can be burnt as a “sweet smell to Yahweh”. The choice of animal sacrifice over grain goes back to the time of hunters and gathers when the “Hebrews” lived in the highlands of Canaan in contrast to the rich and more advanced, but sedately agricultural life of the Canaanites along the coast.

To get the odious smell of cooking meat that rise up toward “the sky” הַשָּׁמַיִם
Hasmyrime where the gods along with Israel‘s Yahweh lived; two demands were needed to accomplish this:
A. Slaughtering / killing of the animal.
B. Burning of its body parts or fat meat so Yahweh can smell it as the heat of the fire carries the smoke upward to where the warrior deity or Yahweh sit on his throne and can now feed on the burnt flesh. (This sacrifice ritual is highly important in the Priestly redaction in Genesis 8: 21; Exodus 29: 18, 25; Lev. 1: 9, 13 ,17, 2: 2 ,9, 12, 3: 5, 16, 4:31, 6: 15, 21, 8:21, 8: 28, 17: 6, 23: 13, 18, 26: 31; Numbers 15: 3,7, 10, 13, 14, 24,18: 17, 28: 2, 6, 8, 13, 24, 27, 28: 27, 29: 2,6, 8, 13 Ezekiel 6: 13, 16: 19, 20: 28, 41. It is repeated again and again so there is no question as to how to get the sweet odor to Yahweh, the slaughtered meat must be burnt to put it into a form Yahweh himself could enjoy.)

Since Abel’s sacrifice deals with blood and death, Yahweh chooses it over the grain offering of Cain. Thus, it is in anger (Gen. 4:6) that Cain kills Abel, but (as noted above) the epic story with its set Laws / Torah regarding sacrifice are anachronistically applied as a teaching tool for latter Jews to this primitive history of the of the first people.

Even though Abel’s murder is also anachronistically known to be against the Mosaic Torah (Exodus 20: 13), Yahweh is only put out by the fact that Cain’s blood is wasted on the ground (Gen. 4: 10 & 11. While the blood of some murdered people “cry out from the ground” (Job 16: 18), the problem here is that Abel’s blood spilt on the ground away from Yahweh’s alter (see: J. Milgrom, “Sacrifices and Offering in the Old Testament” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume (edited by K. Crim, Abingdon Press 1976) pp. 763 - 771). The fact that Abel’s life is understood as simply equal to that of an animal sacrificed away from the altar is the reason that Yahweh is upset. (This point is noted in a related code by the Priestly editor as stated by W.W. Hallo: “Under the Levitical dispensation, animal slaughter “Except at the authorized altar” is murder”. The animal too has life (older version: “a soul”). its vengeance is to be feared, its blood must be “covered” or explained by bringing it to the altar.” (William W. Hallo, “The Origins of the Sacrificial Cult: New Evidence from Mesopotamia and Israel,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank M. Cross (edited by P. Miller, P. Hanson and S.D. McBride Fortress Press, 1987) pp. 3-13)

This story of the first sacrifice ends when Cain kills his brother Abel by the shedding of blood. Yahweh then both curses and protects him at the same time. In the end, Yahweh / God got what he needed and wanted; the slaughter of life by draining its blood done twice. Yahweh’s protection for Cain is given by the use of the ancient Near Eastern divine number “7” which is a common magical and religious number in Semitic text such as those, not only from Ugarit, but text written in Akkadian. (see: Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3 edition, edited by J.B Pritchard (Princeton University Press, 1969). Biblical numbers of 3, 6, 7, 40, 70 are understood as divine number that not only influenced the Gospels and Revelation, but by even Jesus himself!) This numerology is amplified more so in Genesis 4: 24 when Lamech cries out:

“If Cain is avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

In summary, what we have depicted in Genesis 4 is an epic tale projected back in time, about NOT how the second generation of descendants of Adam and Eve populated the earth, but why the slaughter of life and the draining of its blood is more pleasing to Yahweh then the sedentary fruits agriculture. As characteristic with the general Hebrew sacrifice (where the animal is killed and the blood drained before it is burnt) Abel’s animal sacrifice, along with its “fat portions” is simply regarded by Yahweh in the text by וַיִּשַׁע which the LXX renders as “και επειδεν” but the meaning is not clear. The LXX makes it plain that Cain’s sacrifice was not on the same level a Abel’s by “ου προσεσχεν”. Thus, Cain is cursed to leave the sedentary life which had just been cursed on Adam by Yahweh himself (Gen. 3: 17 - 19). Cain then takes on the wandering life of a herdsman that can then supply the sacrifices of animals whose blood and flesh are more pleasing to Yahweh.

This story tells us why Yahweh demands life; be it animal (as in the case of Abel’s offering or the killing of Abel as done by the agrarian Cain). Also, that its acceptance by Yahweh is revealed with a cultic divine mark of protection on Cain. The section ends with two deaths (both animal and human) with the ancient deity pleased with both. (The problem of these sacrificial offerings not being burnt is a challenge the Yahwist (J) in that he / she could not fit into the story of fire to burn the sacrifices with since he did not even know or how to anachronously inserted a concept like the stealing of fire as the Greeks did with Prometheus (See both works by the late C.H. Gordon: The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations (New York, 1965) and his Homer and Bible: The Origin and Character of East Mediterranean Literature (New Jersey, 1967). This is brought up to date by the master of ancient Greek religion; Walter Burkett: Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions (Harvard University Press, 1998) where both humans and animals function in the role of sacrifice to the Gods to remove the guilt of sin.


III. Empirical Texts Telling of the Wars of Yahweh and the Slaughter of Men, Women and Children (as animals) to Satisfy Yahweh (God’s) Craving for Blood and Life

Apart from the Tetratuch, the book of Joshua forms one of six sections of the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua - Kings) that conveys the epic story of Israel. The redactor of the epic in Joshua wanted to portray the Israelites as having destroyed completely all the inhabitants of Canaan(contra to that of the text of Judges which has the inhabitants of Canaan living within the land along side the Israelites) in a massive sweep under the divine concept of Holy War / Divine Warrior (Modern terms given to the context where Yahweh Himself leads the Israelite armies into battle during Holy War. of the LORD (Yahweh):

"It shall be, when you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the balsam trees, then you shall act promptly, for then the LORD (Yahweh) will have gone out before you to strike the army of the Philistines." (2 Samuel 5: 24) (An excellent discussion of this concept can be found in Frank M. Cross: Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. See the chapter on “The Divine Warrior“, pp. 91 - 111 and P.D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel, (Harvard Semitic Monographs V, 1970).

As Divine or Holy Warriors, the Israelite men would ready themselves for war by consecration in reframing from sex and not cutting their hair (Judges 5:2 plus the figure of the Nazirite Holy warrior: Samson) which is record in the ancient poetic text of Judges 5 or what scholars call “The Song of Deborah”.

This is again reiterated in 2 Samuel 11: 6-14 in the story of King David and Uriah when Joab brings Uriah home to sleep with Bathsheba to cover up David’s sexual sin. But as a dedicated Holy Warrior, Uriah refused sex (2 Samuel 11: 11). Although Nathan foretells David of his coming crisis 2 Sam. 12 1-15, the section ends when Yahweh kills the innocent child of David and Bathsheba as a crude sacrifice for sin. (However, once the first child slaughter is accepted as the atonement for David’s sin, Yahweh can then bless them with a second child who will became famous: Solomon (vs.24)). I have used the term “slaughter” in the context that David’s first born, just like in the epic context when Yahweh himself slaughters the first born of both the Egyptian’s children and animals in the covenant of Passover to be taught as a sign for all future Israel:

“For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to come in to your houses to smite you. When you enter the land which the LORD will give you, as He has promised, you shall observe this rite. And when your children say to you, 'What does this rite mean to you?' you shall say, 'It is a Passover sacrifice to the LORD who passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, but spared our homes.'" And the people bowed low and worshiped.” (Exodus 12: 23 - 27).



The above elements are brought together in the epic tale of the fall of Jericho where both the concepts of Holy War and the Divine Warrior are incorporated with the common ancient Near Eastern magical number seven:

“Also seven priests shall carry seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark; then on the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, and the priests shall blow the trumpets. "It shall be that when they make a long blast with the ram's horn, and when you hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city will fall down flat, and the people will go up every man straight ahead.” (Joshua 6: 4 - 5).

With the city wall destroyed, the human slaughter of all the men women and children along with their animals could begin under the ancient concept of Holy War where Yahweh, as the leading Warrior-King deity of the Israelite army, demands all the booty of the city from the death of all living things to its gold, silver, bronze and iron as his portion of the הרס or “harem” or the BAN.

“They utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword…They burned the city with fire, and all that was in it. Only the silver and gold, and articles of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD. (Joshua 6: 21 & 24)

{Word study: שָׂרַף as used in this context is associated with בָּאֵשׁ as the text reads
“שָׂרַף בָּאֵשׁ” or “to burn with fire”. This is a cognate of the Akkadian ina isati sarapu “to destroy by fire” as in relation to burning figurines in magic rituals.

The word שָׂרַף as used in this study is associated in the Priestly work of Leviticus in the burning of animal sacrifices (see also Numbers 17:4, Judges 7: 31, 19: 5 and 2 Kings 17:31). However, most importantly, פרש is used in the Hebrew Bible in the context of children burnt to the gods: Duet. 12: 31, Jeremiah 7: 31, 19: 5, and 2 Kings 17: 31.

Thus, all life, both human and animal life of the city of Jericho, is ritualistically slaughtered and then Yahweh can feast on the smoke from the blood and bodies of the victims, the city is “שָׂרַף בָּאֵש” or burnt with fire.}


The cultic magical elements flow full and free in Joshua 6 - 7. But the victory is short lived due to hidden sin! Unknown to Joshua, Yahweh is denied his full booty; not the precious lives of the non-combatant: All the innocent women, children, babies, the unborn and animals (which Yahweh again equates the innocent human life), but Yahweh greed is for the material metal wealth; that is the gold, silver, bronze and iron that could be used in his tabernacle. (In the book of Jonah, after Jonah preaches in Nineveh, Jonah 4:11 tells us that both humans and animal repented.)

With the murder of all life in Jericho completed and the everything burnt to Yahweh (Notice that the cultic proper killing of life of both humans and animal in Jericho means that their blood must be drained. Thus Joshua 6: 21 makes it a point to tell the Jewish reader of this epic that death was to be by “the edge of the sword” before the ritual / sacrificial burning 6: 24 could take place.)

To seal the future fate of the city, an divine curse is placed on anyone who tries to rebuild it:

“Then Joshua made them take an oath at that time, saying, "Cursed before the LORD is the man who rises up and builds this city Jericho; with the loss of his firstborn he shall lay its foundation, and with the loss of his youngest son he shall set up its gates." (Joshua 6:26). (again, the curse here is much like we find in such major This is like many general ancient Near Eastern Akkadian texts such as the epilogue to the Code of Hammurabi. Thus, Yahweh’s curse in verse 26 has set the stage for the slaughter of Achan and all that belonged to him.

Since Yahweh was denied his booty of gold and silver, Yahweh must take his vengeance out on the 3,000 Israelites by not marching into Holy War against Ai:

“So about three thousand men from the people went up there, but they fled from the men of Ai. The men of Ai struck down about thirty-six of their men, and pursued them from the gate as far as Shebarim and struck them down on the descent, so the hearts of the people melted and became as water.” (Joshua 7: 4-5)

The reason given to Joshua is that “Israel has sinned” by taking Yahweh’s gold and sliver:

"Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them. And they have even taken some of the things under the ban and have both stolen and deceived. Moreover, they have also put them among their own things.” (Joshua 7: 11) Thus, all of Israel must consecrate themselves to be made holy (as in a divine ritual for Holy Warriors and priests):

“ 'It shall be that the one who is taken with the things under the ban (harem) shall be burned with fire, he and all that belongs to him, because he has transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he has committed a disgraceful thing in Israel.'" (Joshua 7: 15).

Since Yahweh was cheated out of his gold and silver, human slaughter must sacrificially be feed to Yahweh to quench his hunger for blood and life:

“Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? The LORD will trouble you this day." And all Israel stoned them with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones.” (Joshua 7: 25)

Again, the slaughter of men, women, children, babies along with the unborn are an atonement for the original booty of gold and silver God was denied. As such, Achan’s whole extended family is sacrificed by stoning (death caused by blunt force trauma
associated with both external and internal bleeding) then, just like Jericho, the slaughtered families are sacrificed to Yahweh to feed on by fire and its smoke.

To mark the spot as holy, an altar built of stones was set up there to honor Yahweh:

“They raised over him a great heap of stones that stands to this day, and the LORD turned from the fierceness of His anger. Therefore the name of that place has been called the valley of Achor to this day.” (Joshua 7: 26)

With Yahweh’s hunger for human blood and flesh satisfied, he again marches with the Israelites into Holy War; this time against Ai. But, unlike before, Joshua cuts a deal with Yahweh to make up for their defeat the first time by Achan’s hidden sin. Thus, Israel will get to keep all the “spoils and its cattle” (8: 2), but again, all the human life of 12,000 souls must be sacrificially killed and burnt to Yahweh:

“…then all Israel returned to Ai and struck it with the edge of the sword. All who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000-- all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not withdraw his hand with which he stretched out the javelin until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. … So Joshua burned Ai and made it a heap forever, a desolation until this day.” (Joshua 8:24c - 26 and 28)



III. The Slaughter of Christ

To keep this post from futher excessive length, I’ve listed some of the reasons that Jesus, as the Christ, fails to qualify as a true sacrificial offering. To get Jesus to a point where he can be both a human sacrifice and a retuning Warrior-King; the term Messiah had to be totally degraded. It‘s little wonder St. Paul states:

“For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are being destroyed, but it is God's power to us who are being saved. … For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe through the nonsense of our preaching.” (1 Corth. 1: 18 & 21)


A. The Roman method of crucifixion, which included the beating before Jesus was nailed to the cross, was done by pagan gentile men who were neither consecrated as holy in God’s sight, nor was Jesus’ beating and crucifixion generally any different from the thousands the Romans had made examples out of earlier (Josephus, Jewish Wars 2: Ch.308; Philo Flacc 72: 84 -85).

B. No animal in the Hebrew Bible was made to suffer as an atonement to God. The animal was ritualistically killed usually with a knife and then it bled to died quickly. Aftewards, its whole body was brunt or only its fat and organs burnt with the sweet smell in the form of smoke of the bruning flesh rising up to God.

In contrast, Jesus was made to suffer under Roman law and was neither quickly killed by proper bleeding nor burnt. Even the innocent women, children and babies who were slain with the sword at Jericho died quickly and then were burnt so Yahweh could enjoy it.

C. No sacrificial animal, be it human or beast, could still be alive (resurrected) after the act of sacrifice and still be a true offering to God. Its life (as carried in the blood and burnt body) were sealed in death to God forever into the heavens by the rising smoke.

D. Again, since Jesus was not burnt as human sacrifice as in the Hebrew Bible, God could feast upon the smell of the smoke.

F. No one single offering atoned once and for all the sins of the Jews much less those of the entire future world (conta Paul’s theology in Romans). That Jesus is said to be sinless is only a relevant truth: To the educated religious Jews, he blasphemer. To the Christians, the sinless lamb of God.

I could continue, but enough for now. I’m sure this post will be a hotly debated subject in the comment section.

Shalom,
Harry

Dr. Egnor is wrong -- Genomics Shows Why

25 comments
One of the most interesting creationists to ever push his head out of the Discovery Institute is a neurosurgeon by the name of Michael Egnor. Dr. Egnor gained his recognition by penning an essay about why he wouldn't want his doctor to understand evolution. He went about proving that he himself certainly didn't know about evolution.

The most interesting line in his otherwise unremarkable essay came when he said the following:

If you needed treatment for a brain tumor, your medical team would include a physicist (who designed the MRI that diagnosed your tumor), a chemist and a pharmacologist (who made the medicine to treat you), an engineer and an anesthesiologist (who designed and used the machine that give you anesthesia), a neurosurgeon (who did the surgery to remove your tumor), a pathologist (who studied the tumor under a microscope and determined what type of tumor it was), and nurses and oncologists (who help you recover and help make sure the tumor doesn’t come back). There would be no evolutionary biologists on your team.

To be honest, this is largely true and mostly on point. Certainly nobody would want an evolutionary biologist working on their tumor. However, if you were the family member of the person with the tumor, you might have a very different opinion about it all.

The new science of genomic medicine is looking to allow us to trace our personal genetic heritages back hundreds of thousands if not possibly millions of years. One of the most important findings in cancer research, something that I hope even Dr. Egnor would not be "Egnorant" about is the importance of family history in the assessment of cancer risk.

There are tumors that are caused by genetic problems, yet some of these are quite common. From Dr. Egnor's point of view, all he can point to to explain this huge life-changing problem in the lives of his patients is God's will, or perhaps sin (which is also God's will). However the explanations open to the evolutionary biologist are numerous and not only that, the evolutionary biologist can use the knowledge we have of the human genome and the differences between our genome and those of our simian, primate and mammalian relatives to try to find ways to cure or prevent these horrible tumors.

Poor Dr. Egnor will be left where he is now, in the operating room, thinking that there's nothing evolutionary biology has to offer him, but this simply isn't the case even if he looks at the patient he just operated on.

You see the cancer that he is removing also evolved within the patient he is removing it from. Almost all malignant tumors must first lose the gene p53 which would otherwise cause the cell to stop dividing and suicide itself. This is something that each cell contains, so before a tumor can grow, it must first evolve a loss of this gene. To quote the article referenced above:

It seems that DNA damage itself is not the critical event that leads to cancer, as long as the oncogenic-stress pathways that activate p53 are intact. Furthermore, these results underscore the need to ensure that the relevant upstream pathway for p53 activation is intact, possibly even enhanced. For example, drugs in development enhance the function of kinases that activate p53 in response to DNA damage.

To clarify, it is critical that we understand how the gene p53 works to develop drugs that can fight, or even better prevent the cancers that Dr. Egnor is trying to remove. One of the most important components of that understanding comes from studying this gene in other organisms to whom we are related.

Even more interesting is the program for a symposium held in Copenhagen earlier this year. Titles include:

100 Million years of evolutionary history of the human genome
David Haussler, Professor, Director of Center for Biomolecular Science & Engineering, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz

Selection and population sizes in the human lineage inferred from primate genome sequences
Mikkel Heide Schierup, Associate Professor, Bioinformatics Research Center, University of Aarhus

Genome Wide Association studies bring new responses about diabetes and obesity global epidemics
Philippe Froguel, Professor, Chair in Genomic Medicine, Division of Medicine, Imperial College London

Yet to Dr. Egnor, this is all irrelevant. Dr. Egnor represents the worst of the creationist mindset. He doesn't even want to understand the earth and the histories of his patients. He doesn't want to find ways to prevent a disease. He just wants to keep doing what he's always done, ignorant of the greater march of science around him.

Jesus Was a Human Sacrifice

170 comments
In all "civilized" countries in the world, Human Sacrifice is unlawful. The reason it is unlawful is that it is murder. I have seen it argued that a law against murder is one of the Ten Commandments because it is an aspect of a universal moral that proves Gods existence. I think we can all see the irony and logical inconsistency in that.
[Revised Aug. 8, 2008 to add the "Human Sacrifice Algorithm" to the bottom of the matrix]









This article uses a Matrix to show that Jesus was a human sacrifice. While some Christians may find nothing wrong with this, I know that some do. In my early days in the church, the sight of that cadaver hanging on the cross with blood pouring down its face and a bleeding gash on the side along with the old "this is my body and blood" at the communion presented a formidable stumbling block to me. I will even go so far as to say that I had to overcome a natural revulsion to accept those aspects of Christianity. [Click on the picture of the lamb to enlarge it to see the stream of blood pouring out of the gash on the left side.]

Since I expect that some Christians will attempt to concentrate on one datum or some philosophical spin to discredit the conclusion and/or "poison the well", I opted to present the data in a matrix because it is a data analysis tool that presents data in a way that makes it easier to avoid focusing on one datum and to consider, compare and contrast all the data at a glance.

In the Hypothesis Test Matrix, a datum that is consistent with the two categories of comparison are labeled with a "C", a datum that is inconsistent is labeled with an "I", and a datum that is ambiguous is labeled with an "A". In Hypothesis tests, usually there are competing hypotheses but in this case, I couldn't think of any competing hypotheses. Therefore there is nothing that is inconsistent or ambiguous, especially since Paul and John speak of Jesus death as a sacrifice of atonement. In a real Hypothesis Matrix, the winning hypothesis is the one that is least inconsistent with the data.

Hypothesis test: "Jesus was a Human Sacrifice"

Data Jesus Human Sacrifice
Wikipedia on the "Lamb of God":
Lamb of God (Latin: Agnus Dei) is one of the titles given to Jesus in the New Testament and consequently in the Christian tradition. It refers to Jesus' role as a sacrificial lamb atoning for the sins of man in Christian theology, harkening back to ancient Jewish Temple sacrifices in which a lamb was slain during the passover (the "Paschal Lamb", Hebrew: Korban Pesach), the blood was sprinkled on the altar, and the whole of the lamb was eaten. In the original Passover in Egypt, the blood was smeared on the door posts and lintel of each household (Exodus 12:1-28).
C C
The Lamb (in early Christian Symbolism) from The Catholic Encyclopedia:
The next step in the development of this idea of associating the Cross with the lamb was depicted in a sixth-century mosaic of the Vatican Basilica which represented the lamb standing on a throne, at the foot of a Cross studded with gems. From the pierced side of this lamb, blood flowed into a chalice whence again it issued in five streams, thus recalling Christ's five wounds.
C C
Romans 5:8-11:
"8. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."
C C
Atonement from Answers.com:
"1 Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.
2.a. Reconciliation or an instance of reconciliation between God and humans.
b. Atonement Christianity. The reconciliation of God and humans brought about by the redemptive life and death of Jesus."
C C
John 3:16-17:
"16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. "
[this is the atonement, or reconciliation between god and man, jesus paid the price for mans sin with his life blood.]
C C
Without the atonement no one, moral or not, gets to heaven. Jesus Sacrifice was a prerequisite requirement.
C C
Jesus was killed (more or less) during the same time frame as the passover lamb was supposed to be killed. The Passover is a Jewish ceremony that contains rituals of cultural rememberence.
C C
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia on Human Sacrifice:
"Offering of the life of a human being to a god."
C C
Human Sacrifice from Wikipedia:
"Human sacrifice is the act of homicide (the killing of one or several human beings) in the context of a religious ritual (ritual killing). Its typology closely parallels the various practices of ritual slaughter of animals (animal sacrifice) and of religious sacrifice in general. Human sacrifice has been practiced in various cultures throughout history. Victims were typically ritually killed in a manner that is supposed to please or appease gods, spirits or the deceased."
C C
www.allaboutjesuschrist.org says it explicitly:
"Approximately 1,500 years later, on the 14th day of Nisan, the Passover Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, was sacrificed upon a wooden cross for the sins of all mankind. When the Day of the Lord comes, those who have covered themselves in the blood of the Lamb by accepting Christ will be kept safe while the world pays for their rebellion against God."
C C
Revelations 5:12:
Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.
C C
Humans do something to offend god,CC
Humans need to do something to propitiate, apppease, pay, remdiate, reconcile, pick the synonymous word you prefer or come up with one of your own. CC
A human sacrifice is chosenCC
A human sacrifice is performedCC
A human Sacrifice is made as part of a ritualCC
Sometimes the sacrifice victim is willingCC
The god is appeased, the "wrath" in this instance is all wrapped up and put away.CC

Considering that it is so easy to find Christian sites that support the hypothesis, it is not a good hypothesis to test with the matrix because there really are no other competing hypotheses that I know of. However, I have been challenged and seen Christians deny that Jesus was a human sacrifice while acknowledging all the premises required to support the conclusion. I expect that this article will turn into a debate with some Christians about "definition", "meaning" and "distinctions" with liberal use of "special pleading" where they argue that it is not murder or human sacrifice because the Christian God was involved, while they wrestle with the cognitive dissonance that occurs when two values come into conflict.

Further Reading:
Answers.com: Human Sacrifice
Answers.com: Ritual Killing
Answers.com: Atonement
The Catholic Encyclopedia
Wikipedia: Lamb of God
www.allaboutjesuschrist.org

Truth: Absolute or Relative?

22 comments
This post was begun as a return rely to a comment I made on John's last post. Since it is so valid to what we discuss here at DC, I felt it would make a discussion for a new thread.

Rev. Phil stated: “I do have one question though, cannot you position your point to any ideology? Science or politics or humanities all make various claims that they have the "truth" for whatever they may be addressing and yet have widely differing and even contra-dictionary views internally?”

Thanks for your question, Rev. Phil.

OK, lets take science. The one of the main reasons I left Christianity for a career in electronics is over the issue of truth. In science, truth is relative on many levels based on our knowledge at the time.

Lets say there is a power supply whose output dropped form 12 VDC to 7 VDC. As a fellow electronic tech, you claim you know it’s in the filtering circuit (lets say the capacitor) while I claim it’s in the regulator circuit (lets say one of the bias resisters on the Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor or MOSFET). We both strongly believe our knowledge as to the power supply’s malfunction is 100% right; that is our truth. In other words, we both have an opinion based of our understanding of electronics which equates truth with knowledge. However, unlike religion / theology, with just a voltmeter (DVM) or and oscilloscope, we can prove truth in a matter of minutes; thus KNOWING who was wrong and who was right.

The same can be said about relative truth in science. For over 60 years vacuum tubes were the absolute truth. That’s how we understood electronics; it was the only way we understood truth and it worked great in our radios, TV’s and early computers. Then, Bipolar Transistors were the “truth” of the day as developed by Bell Labs. Now it’s the Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor that is our truth and they are used in large scale integration as in the computer you are reading this post on.

The same now out dated absolute “truth” is replacing our analog TV technology which is being relatively up dated in February 2009 with Digital High-Definition TV HDDTV); a totally new kind of electronic truth that is also totally incompatible with the old analog TV truth.

As an example, the other day I went to a musical instrument store with my brother who wanted to get an electric guitar. I noticed the guitar room had a number of vacuum tube amps costing over 3 times as much as a MOSFET amp ($3500.00). I commented to the salesman as to why would anyone would want old technology and pay $3500.00 for a tube amp that is fragile (tubes can break and the control elements can warp or shake loose), needs high voltages (tube plates running at 600 VDC and upwards) and tubes are subject to audio phonics (the speaker can shake the vacuum tube elements causing output distortion).

His reply: “No Sir! No Sir! These amps are designed to avoid all of that. Plus you will not get as high a quality of sound from any solid state amp.”

I asked him if I took an audio analyzer (a test equipment that sweeps a pure known range of frequencies into the amp under test’s input and then compares these audio frequencies to the amps output for the total percentage of distortion induced by the amps circuit) and the MOSFET amp’s signal was equal to the vacuum tube amp or better, would that prove my point, sir?

Salesman: “No Sir! All that fancy test equipment can not replace the trained musical ear which knows true fidelity when he hears it.”

Again, I tried to reason with him and asked him if vacuum tube amps were indeed better, why does not NASA used them to tract their space probes.

Salesman: “NASA needs to cut cost plus the U.S. government gets supports the newest fade in electronics and not from the best proven technology."

Then the salesman demanded: “And just what makes you knowledgeable in this area anyway? You don’t play a guitar do you?” I had hit a wall!

With a background in religion, I felt I was arguing theology. Plus, without the means to prove our facts at the time, it was simply what I said vs. what the salesman (in ignorance) said. We were debating the absolute truth (vacuum tubes now, vacuum tubes forever) vs. relative truth of advancing facts / logic.

You want to know something funny; within 50 feet I walked into the keyboard room and asked another salesman there why none of the keyboards used vacuum tube amps?

Keyboard Salesman: “Hu? I don’t know what your are talking about!”

When I told him what the guitar amp salesman said about vacuum tube amps, the keyboard salesman said that THE REASON MUST BE that vacuum tube amps work better ONLY with guitars.

I started to again explain the logic behind modern technological advances as I had just done with the guitar salesman, but I said to myself: “What the Hell! I’m now in the world of religion and theology.”

The above situation is religion in a nut shell. The problem is that Bible believers are the vacuum tube faithful whose truth is an absolute which can never be surpassed since it was the “truth" that was “Once delivered to the saints”.

As such, the Bible is a vacuum tube manual (but with the Old Testament equal to a Spark Gap Generator) where the true Bible believer is just like those guitar pickers who are willing to pay over 3 times as much for out dated technology (truth) and are also willing to argue their pseudo facts as to why it is so much better than anything secular humanity has today. And when the non- believer objects their flawed logic, we are told just as the guitar salesman told me about not being able to have any valid logic on vacuum tube amps since I did not pick a guitar, or as we so often hear her at DC: “Why should anyone listen to anything you say? You are not a Christian believer!”

As the old independent, fundamental, Bible believing, Bible preaching evangelist once told me about the 1611 King James Version of the Bible: “Brother, if it was good enough for Peter and Paul, it's good enough for me!”

Dr. Hector Avalos Has Joined DC!

11 comments
[Written by John W. Loftus] He said he might not be posting that often, and that's okay. Now he has an outlet to express himself in response to the many battles he has online. He's already posted several things at DC and I linked to others. Here are some of them: 

Low cost spots at recovery retreat!

0 comments
Hi everybody,
A while ago I posted a notice about a weekend workshop we are offering soon. I'm pleased to say we have some space available for some "pay what you can" participants. The room and board would still be $125 but beyond that is negotiable. So get in touch soon!

Kind regards,
Marlen Winell

Here's the notice again:


LEAVING YOUR RELIGION?

It's not the end of the world! Join us at a recovery retreat.

"RELEASE AND RECLAIM"

August 15-17, 2008, with Dr. Marlene Winell

Do you feel alone in your struggle for healing? Come to a supportive and powerful weekend with others who can understand you -- an oasis from dogmatic teachings and judgmental groups. We'll rant and rave, tell our stories, discuss the issues, visualize, role-play, dance and draw – whatever it takes to think for ourselves and reclaim our lives. A joyful, empowered life is your birthright and you can start now.

WHEN: FRIDAY, Aug. 15, 7PM - SUNDAY, Aug. 17, 3PM.

WHERE: A beautiful house in Berkeley, California,
with hot tub and other amenities.

COST: $320 for the workshop, $125 for room and board. Financial need considered & options available.

TO REGISTER: Call 510-292-0509 or send an email to recoveryfromreligion@gmail.com. Register soon as group size is limited.


Dr. Marlene Winell is a psychologist & author of "Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists & Others Leaving their Religion." She has a practice in Berkeley & also counsels individuals by phone. For more info, mailing list, comments about retreats, & Youtube link, visit: www.marlenewinell.net. Or call Dr. Winell for a complimentary discussion about your interest.

I Have A Funny Feeling

45 comments
For new people to this site (and we get many of them everyday) I've written a book that can be ordered right now on Amazon and shipped in seven days. A link to it along with some blurbs can be found here. I've noticed a kind of glee that Christian apologists have had with the so-called new atheists to date, who are lining up to answer them. They claim to be winning the argument hands down, easily, in the popular culture.

I have a funny feeling their job just got harder.

Paul Copan’s Moral Relativism: A Response from a Biblical Scholar of the New Atheism

79 comments
Subtitled, "Dr. Paul Copan: Apologist for Genocide"

by Dr. Hector Avalos

*Unless noted otherewise, all biblical translations are those of the RSV.

In an blog essay titled, Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?: The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics,” Dr. Paul Copan, a well-known Christian apologist, attempts to combat the New Atheists, and their dim view of biblical ethics. However, it soon becomes apparent that his critique repeats factual errors and biases found in earlier biblical apologists. Dr. Copan reveals himself as just another Christian apologist who supports biblical genocide and other injustices.

My Son's Baptism

14 comments
On Sunday, July 12, my oldest (13-year-old) son was baptized in a swimming pool. My other son (11) and daughter (9) had already been baptized at a Bible church two years ago while my oldest son was away on a Boy Scout campout. I wasn’t sure whether he would ever choose to be baptized: he has (understandably) expressed confusion to me about what to believe, and he doesn’t like to be in the public spotlight.

Though I continued attending an evangelical church with my family for four years following my deconversion, I dropped out in 2004. The rest of the family attends a local Bible church on most Sundays, but about once a month they meet at a “home church” with some friends in the neighborhood. Though I don’t attend the services, I do join the group for the Sunday noon meal afterward. It was at this home church that a spontaneous offer went out for anyone to be baptized at a nearby pool. I learned at the meal that my son had assented to be baptized (though I have reason to believe it was more out of social pressure than conviction). He expressed concern to me about the kind of questions he would be asked. I really didn’t feel like I could say much, so I told him it was up to him.

We all took off to the pool after the meal. There, the leader of the home church baptized a younger boy and then my son. The only question asked was, “Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for your sins?”, to which my son somewhat replied “Yes,” then received a dunking.

Afterward the leader (who knows what I believe) told me “Thanks,” to which I (as one who generally likes to be nice to others) instinctively replied, “Thank you.” Later I wondered if I had performed an initiation rite to another religion (or to atheism) for one of his sons, would he have said, “Thank you”? I doubt I was bothered as much by the situation as he would have been bothered by the converse. My own baptism at age 12 didn’t prevent me from leaving the fold later in life, nor does this recent event in itself mystically lock my son into anything irrevocable. Perhaps also I’m cognizant of the fact that I started out my marriage and family as a believer, so I don’t feel as peeved about it as if I had been a skeptic all along and my son had been pulled into fundamentalism out of the blue. Still, it’s a reminder of the fact that religion is relentlessly striving to claim as many as possible of its own, and that someday my son will be forced to make a decision about his direction. If I sit idly by, he will likely take the path of least resistance under this pressure, even if he remains inwardly confused about what to believe.

Even so, I’m not super worried: I was able to find my way out of faith without the support of either parent; at least my children have my example. And if they never see things my way, I can’t say that’s the outcome I desire, but I’ll love them all the same.

I’m sure I’ll hear from some who think I should take a harder line. It’s difficult to say what’s best, but one thing is sure: I love my wife and kids and don’t want anything to jeopardize our union. I will not hesitate to continue gently presenting my views to my children, but I will not force the issue to the detriment of our relationship. That’s the difference between my approach and that of Jesus, who said,

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household’ (Matthew 10:34-36).

An Email About the Paranormal

17 comments
I received this email and not being an expert on this subject thought I'd listen to the collective wisdom of people who are. What do you think?
I have seen that much of the articles and commentaries in many of the atheist blogs relate to religion as it's practiced in America now. I have a few questions and I hope someone can help me out here.

I am currently a pentecostal from South India (Kerala) but since last year I have been very critical of Christianity. Pentecostal christianity in India is slightly different from the American version. They forbid jewelery, movies, secular songs etc etc (I know there are branches of Christianity in America that practise this too) and there is a lot of 'miracle work', personal prophecy and revelations and steer quite a lot towards personal piety. However, reading the bible and really thinking about it, the whole thing brings forward way too many holes for christianity to be a one stop shop for truth. I have slowly started to move away from christian beliefs and have been inching my way towards atheism. And in most areas I have started to find answers that gives me some clarification.

However there is one aspect that stumps me and I have not been able to find any solid articles regarding it. It's about prophecies. And by prophecies I mean the ability of some pastors to know secrets of a particular person. We have quite a lot of that in India. Predicting the future is nothing big, cause I have read about self fulfilling prophecies and such. But the following has me researching online frantically but not finding anything yet. There's quite a lot of 'supernatural' prophecy phenomenon and miracles (mostly unverified and quite a lot of them involves doctors just doing their job) in South India.

1. I recently had an interesting conversation with my sister and she told me about a pastor who visited her college and revealed things about her that he couldn't possibly have known ever. He did this again with her friends who weren't Christians that turned out to be true. These are things their friends didn't know but he was able to reveal it to the person privately and sort of 'call them to action'. For example, he told a Hindu friend that she has a weak heart and that she should consider surgery. No one except my sister and another friend knew about this. And it seems unlikely that someone else told him about her. (Again, this is what the hindu friend told my sister after the so called consultation, it's not likely again that she should have to lie about it).


2. She again tells me of a couple of students from a college prayer group who meet with a pastor they never knew at a church meeting. The pastor tells them that there is one student in the prayer group who cries out at night. It turns out that a student was going through quite a lot of personal problems and he used to cry at night after prayers. This student accepted christ eventually and was worried about his brothers who weren't saved. He prayed quite a lot and one day saw a vision of a large book and he sees the names of his brothers in the book. The next day he gets a call from his brother and the brother tells him that he accepted Christ last night (the night the student saw that vision). This is what the student told my sister and I have no way of verifying whether he exaggerated or just plain lied.

3. A girl was pondering over questions of God's existence over several months almost tiring herself out. One morning she goes to a church with my sister and friends and the preacher speaks exactly 'what she needed to hear'. After the service, the preacher comes over to the group and suddenly points to her and says 'today's message was directed to you'. No one had told him anything about her.(Incidentally, this pastor's father is thought of as a false prophet by quite a number of people that I know personally)

4. I personally have had prophecies told about me. Most of them were predictions of my future which I could point out as self fulfilling and I could argue against it.

These are unverified but these are testimonies from my sister, who has no reason to lie because she herself is a bit of skeptic, although not as much as me. She does believe the 'holy spirit' reveals things but I definitely can't believe that unless it's verifiable. And there are just too many holes in Christianity to reconcile it with this apparently supernatural phenomenon. I do think this is an area that needs some serious scientific research. If it's being done already please point me to articles regarding this.

Is it the unknown power of the mind? Would anyone at DC know anything in-depth about this? Have you gone through this experience?

Do you think young people are vulnerable enough for people to look into their minds easily?

The Evangelical Philosophical Society Has a Blog

1 comments
Link.

Robert M. Price Interviewed About His Newest Book, Top Secret.

0 comments
Link, then scroll down below his picture to listen. He's also speaking in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, if you're nearby. I'll be there as well.

William Lane Craig debates John Shook in Canada, 2008

4 comments
I've personally skipped most of Craig's opening statement (since I've heard it before) to "Part 3" where John Shook starts at 2:10. Here is the link

Is I Corinthians 15:3-8 ‘Too Early’ to Be Legend?

44 comments
Dawson Betrhick of the Incinerating Presuppositionalism blog posted an excellent essay on the alleged post resurrection appearances listed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. Mr. Bethrick's style make his critique worthwhile reading. Here is the link to Is I Corinthians 15:3-8 ‘Too Early’ to Be Legend?

Here is the link to Is I Corinthians 15:3-8 ‘Too Early’ to Be Legend?

What Would It Take to Convince an Atheist?

11 comments

What's Your Favorite Atheist Quote?

27 comments

Dinesh D'Souza v. Dan Barker Debate

21 comments

Adam and Eve Didn't Exist -- The Molecules Tell Us Why

81 comments
Students of biology know with as near a certainty as knowledge is capable of that all organisms on earth are related. All use DNA or RNA as their genetic code. The code for turning DNA into protein is hugely similar in all cases and identical in most cases, and the records of fossils leave no doubt that the timespan involved in the creation of modern multicellular life has been about 3.5 billion years, most of which was spent with only unicellular creatures inhabiting the earth.

If humans are descended from a non-human ancestor, which biology shows definitively, then the story of Adam and Eve is wrong in its particulars without question. It is not even a valuable metaphor for people who don't accept it as true, because it suggests that humans have some special status beyond that of other creatures. Additionally, it suggests that we have "dominion" over the earth, which is a terrible idea that has created a very dangerous mindset in many human beings.

What is the evidence then, for common descent?

In a word, it's overwhelming. We'll look at it in greater detail now.

The most important evidence for common descent can be appreciated by anyone who does a broad survey of the existing kinds of life on earth. What we see are gradations of forms with variations on various types. This is what we would expect if the process of speciation were of a branching nature, with new forms coming from established ones.

However, there are molecular evidences that are real "smoking guns". This happens when an animal has a functioning gene that becomes inactivated. The animal will sometimes die, but occasionally environmental factors allow it to survive with the gene no longer active. When this happens, all the descendants of that animal will carry a "pseudogene" on their genetic code that looks very much like an active ancestral form but no longer functions. We'll focus on the most important one that establishes without question that humans are descended from other primates.

Simians and anthropoids (including chimps, orangs, baboons, gorillas and humans) are unable to make their own vitamin C (ascorbic acid). The reason for this is that the normal mammalian enzyme that makes vitamin C (called gulonolactone oxidase) is impaired from functioning properly in these animals. There was a deletion mutation and multiple point mutations that keep it from being functional.

Interestingly, the other wet-nosed primate groups, lemurs, monkeys etc., do indeed make their own vitamin C and they are capable of surviving without this as a portion of their diet.

Here's where the story becomes interesting. The mutations that create the inactive enzyme in humans are nearly identical with those of the simian apes. We can see minor variations but the main sequence remains amazingly similar. However there are other mammals that also don't make vitamin C. These include bats and also guinea pigs.

This seems like a monkey wrench in the system. Are we suggesting that these other mammals also descended from prosimians? A closer look reveals the answer. When we examine the actual sequences of the genes of mammals for gulonolactone oxidase we see a clear pattern. Humans, chimps and orangs have nearly identical sequences. Guinea pigs have very different sequences however. Don't take my word for it, scroll down on this page and look at them yourself.

This is exactly the pattern we would expect if it happened by adaptive radiation from a common ancestor. If we assume that the common ancestor of all prosimians ate a diet high in fruits and other foods high in ascorbic acid, the mutation would not have been limiting to life in that ecology. However, we must also assume that for most animals living on a diet that did NOT include ascorbic acid, the mutation would be lethal.

Thus, all the mammals that exist with a mutation in gulonolactone oxidase eat foods high in ascorbic acid, or they die. However, they do not have the same mutations unless they are otherwise closely related. Thus, the mutations in guinea pigs are the same as other guinea pigs. The mutations in apes and anthropoids are the same as other prosimian descendants. Although I am not aware of bats having gulonolcatone oxidase sequencing done at this time, we can assume pending the results that the same pattern will appear.

Scurvy is a horrible disease and has been a great plague to man whenever he takes long trips through hostile territory. Many humans have died for lack of ascorbic acid.

Therefore, the idea of a loving God, who made Adam and Eve with his hands is defied by the simple fact that monkeys could seafare easily on a diet of fish and clams, but we cannot. We must have vitamin C. Yet it would have been trivial for God to give us back the enzyme that makes vitamin C for us.

You can believe many different things, but to believe God exists, and he created Adam and Eve and all their descendants lovingly, you also have to believe he created them in a way that would make them horribly sick if they went without ascorbic acid for a period of time. To me this makes him seem a monster. A much simpler and more rational explanation is that there was no Adam and Eve and that our ancestors were a population of fruit-eating mammals who lost an important enzyme.

Genesis 2:21-25: Woman From Rib and Mother Goddesses of Near Eastern Myths

192 comments

This Article shows that in the second creation story in genesis the concept of woman made from bone, earth and antler pre-existed the writing of Genesis, spanned cultures and geographical boundaries and that Eve shares aspects of Goddesses in Ancient Near Eastern Mythology.

* This article and its predecessors in the series listed below are a collection of notes put together from sources that are represented by quick reference links to similar web pages to make it easy to get more information as quickly as possible. The original sources are listed at the end.

A LIST OF PREMISES AS ARTICLES REFUTING GENESIS 1-11 AND ROMANS 5 SO FAR
P1. The Interconnectedness of The Ancients - Demonstrates the robust ancient civilizations at the time and that Canaan, Israel and Judah were central to them. Discusses trade routes, seafaring, the link between whales and the Leviathans of Mythology and how long it would take to get from one civilization to another by sea.
P2. Genesis 1:1-25 Is An Amalgam of Near Eastern Creation Myths. Demonstrates the prior existence of key elements of the story of the creation of the Universe that appears in Genesis.
P3. Genesis 1:26-1:27, Creation of Humans in Near Eastern Myths And The Paleolithic Era. Demonstrates that the physical evidence contradicts the story of the making of the first humans in Genesis.
P4. GENESIS 1:28-2:4a, Be Fruitful And Multiply, Founder Effect and Genetic Diversity. This Article shows that even if the physical evidence didn't refute the special creation of the first humans, Adam and Eve, in Genesis 1:27, the problem of Genetic Diversity known as the "Founder Effect" would eventually lead to crippling genetic mutations or extinction.
P5.Genesis 2:4b-20 Man Made From Earth Is Folklore, Conflated River Elements and the Myth of Adapa. This Article shows that the concept of man made from earth spans cultures and geographical boundaries, the rivers are confused between geographical areas and has many elements from pre-existing Near Eastern Myths such as "The Myth of Adapa.
P6.Genesis 2:21-25: Woman From Rib and Mother Goddesses of Near Eastern Myths. This Article shows that in the second creation story in genesis the concept of woman made from bone, earth and antler pre-existed the writing of Genesis, spanned cultures and geographical boundaries and that Eve shares aspects of Goddesses in Ancient Near Eastern Mythology.

The criteria for Folklore as described in Alan Dundees book "Holy Writ as Oral Lit" are "multiple existence and variation" of a story.

In Genesis, there are two versions of the creation of Man and Woman. In the first story, the man and woman are created together, but in the second story, the male is created first, with the female made later from his rib.

Making women out of bone and other materials was common in prehistoric times. They are called "Venus Figurines"(1). The theory is that they were used in the practice of sympathetic magic(2) to influence the fertility of the earth.

Sympathetic magic is the practice of trying to influence outcomes using objects or techniques that have only an apparent similarity in appearance or relationship and is not based on any causal link at all. Examples of this can be seen throughout history with the possible inclusion of cave paintings as far back as 32,000 years ago, to belief that behavior of groups or individuals influence nature, to (though not exclusive to) pre-game rituals of modern day athletes. At its core it is a common fallacious reasoning scheme known as "confusion of correlation and cause". One relevant example of sympathetic magic is the Venus Figurine.

Venus Figurines are representation of women with large breasts and bottoms carved in bone, antler, stone or molded of clay(3). Coincidentally, tools in the prehistoric era were made of bone, antler and stone(4). Both were used to help bring about successful outcomes. Examples of them are on display in various museums around the world, but the earliest reside at The Hermitage Museum(3) in Russia.

Theoretically, over time, the concept behind the Venus Figurine came to represent a Mother Goddess(5), which later became represented in various near eastern mythologies as can be seen by the Ashera in the Bible. Similarly, the concept of a God fashioning a woman from bone or some other material has parallels in the East.

Humans originated in sub-sahara Africa(6). They migrated out and began to compensate for their environment and situations. This led to the making of tools, higher order organization, planning, development of agriculture and the establishments of settlements that developed into cities, populated regions and civilizations. The Near East was at the center of trade and conflict between established and robust civilizations all within 1000 miles or about two months march of each other. Egypt and Sumeria developed more or less simultaneously fighting and trading all the while. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle credit Egyptian thought as the foundation of Ancient Greek thought, so even the all-mighty ancient Greeks didn't live in a bubble and it explains their love for the culture.


GENESIS 2:21- 22

21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.

22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.


WOMAN FROM RIB FOLKLORE
The following is a list of cultures where there exists a parallel story of woman being made from bone or some other material and is compiled from Sir James G. Frazer's book "Folklore In The Old Testament".

Origins of the people are ~60,000 BC or earlier
* Karens of Burma, pg 10.
* Bedel Tartars of Siberia,pg 11.

Origins of the people are ~18,000 BC or earlier
* Diegueno Indias Kawakipais, south-western California, pg 25.

The following list represent examples where Frazer believes that cultures have been influenced by Christian missionaries because of the similarity of the word for woman and rib, and some cases where the tribes trace their ancestry to Adam. The influence of missionaries does not necessarily mean that the whole concept of woman being made from a rib came from them but it is sufficient to add details to an existing myth.

* Tahiti - Taaroa the god, pg 9.
* Fakaofo Bowditch Island - Man made from stone, pg 10.
* Ghaikos Karens, trace their genealogy to Adam, pg 11.


GENESIS 23 - 25

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

For the following discussion I used Tim Callahan's Secret Origins of the Bible(8) pages 40 - 49 as a quick reference because it is a convenient "Handbook" collection of relevant information that I've found in other reference material and in lecture courses. This book has hundreds of references listed and I highly recommend it for anyone attempting a serious study of the origin of the bible.

RATIONALE FOR MAKING EVE COME FROM ADAMS RIB
- In Gen 3:20 Eve given the name "Mother of All Living". This is the concept of the mother goddess.
- Like the bible states that the Jews were trying to get rid of the Ashera, the story of Eve serves as a demotion of the Mother God, and a conflation of concepts and ideas circulating at the time.

SYMBOLISM OF EVE
- Reducing the Mother Goddess
- She was derived from Adam, therefore reduced in status, she was supposed to help him.
- From his side, she was equal to him, or supposed to be his partner

LINGUISTIC
- The fact that ancient languages omitted the vowels creates a potential for creativity and relationships between concepts. In Hebrew, the reference to the first woman was written as HWH. HWH when pronounced is similar to Hebe, the greek goddess of youth, guardian of the cups and fruits of immortality. The sound and the ideas are similar to the Hurrian Goddess Hiba, Hebat, Hebatu, Hepatu and Khepat. The Hurrians were referred to in the Bible as the Horats, Hivites and Hittites (even though they preceded the Hittites). She was the consort of the Storm God Teshub. Teshub, like Yahweh and Zeus was associated with Bulls.

EVES DIVINE ORIGIN, PARALLELS BETWEEN GODESSES
- In Sumeria and Babylonia Ashratum wife of Anu
- In West Semitic Ahserah wife of El
- The iconography (ancient picture representations) are essentially the same.
- El had a consort and when Yahweh succeeded him in folklore he kept Asherah as a consort. Subsequently the Hebrews tried to get rid of the Ashera from the pre-exile Jerusalem temple.
- Mother of all living associated with Hebat, Ashtart and/or Asherah
- in the Enuma Elish the goddess Ninti is created to heal the rib of Enki who has violated a taboo on eating forbidden herbs and has been punished. Nin-ti means "Lady of the Rib". In some variations of the story, Nin-ti is created from Enki's rib.

From Wikipedia
Cuneiform TI or TÌL (Borger 2003 nr.) has the main meaning of "life" when used ideographically.

With the determinative UZU "flesh, meat", UZUTI, it means "rib". This homophony is exploited in the myth of Ninti ( NIN.TI "lady of life" or "lady of the rib"), created by Ninhursag to cure the ailing Enki. Since Eve is called "mother of life" in Genesis, together with her being taken from Adam's "tsela"` (side, rib), the story of Adam and Eve has been taken to derive from that of Ninti.

In Akkadian orthography, the sign has the syllabic values di or ṭi, in Hittite ti, di or te.


Continuing From Callahan
- Athena breathed life into the clay men created by Prometheus, and she popped out of the Head of Zeus when he was in pain with a headache.
- In the creation myths in Atrahasis and Enuma Elish their respecitve Mother Godesses mold primordial beings (called the Lullu) out of clay under the supervision of a male deity. This is more relevant compared to Gen. 4:1b, Eve says "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the lord". This verse is evidently abmiguous and could be translated as "I, as well as God have created a man" or "I have gotten a man by the lord" meaning the lord was the father of Cain instead of Adam.
- In Gilgamesh, Aruru (a female deity) makes Enkidu out of clay to defeat Gilgamesh.
- A female Deity has sex with Enkidu to help him become more civilized, to help make him more like a civilized adult man.

---------------------------------------
Quick References

1. Venus Figurines
2. Sympathetic Magic
3. The Hermitage Museum
4. Prehistoric Bone Tools
5. Mother Goddess
6. The Genographic Project
7. Folklore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1 Online
8. Secret Origins of The Bible, Tim Callahan

----------------------------------------
Other Quick References
1. Creation Myths
2. Enuma Elish Text online
3. Prometheus
4. The Myth of Adapa

----------------------------------------
Further Study

ORIGINS OF YAHWEH
* Early History of God, Mark Smith

VENUS FIGURINES
* Archeology.about.com
* Magdalenian excavation
* Minnesota State University E-Museum

SYMPATHETIC MAGIC
* Anthropology of Religion

NEAR EASTERN MYTHS
* Sumerian Myths, Grand Valley State University

-----------------------------------------
SOURCES
1. Human Prehistory and First Civilizations, The Teaching Company
2. Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World, The Teaching Company
3. The Book of Genesis, The Teaching Company
4. Great Figures of the Old Testament, The Teaching Company, (Discontinued)
5. Alan Dundees Holy writ as oral lit
6. Folklore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1 Online, Sir James G. Frazer
7. Ancient Near East Mythology, The Teaching Company, (Discontinued)
8. Classical Mythology, The Teaching Company
9. Great Battles of the Ancient World, The Teaching Company
10. Great World Religions: Judaism (2nd Ed.), The Teaching Company
11. Introduction to Judaism, The Teaching Company
12. History of Ancient Egypt, The Teaching Company
13. Between the Rivers: The History of Ancient Mesopotamia, The Teaching Company
14. Great Ancient Civilzations of Asia Minor, The Teaching Company

How an Atheist Justifies the Use of Logic

46 comments
Recently a theist asked how an atheist justifies the use of logic. (The following discussion is primarily drawn from strongatheism.net.)

The context of the question carries a large number of spurious presuppositions that have origin in a broad scoped fallacy not unique to theism. This fallacy is called the epistemological reversal of the subject-object of thought reversal. (Objectivism defines and discusses this fallacy at length.) Theists imagine a strawman that logic and what is fallaciously identified as the “laws of nature” are “an effect of random molecules and chemical reactions that can never give nor validate anything whatsoever.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

Logic arises from material existence and is necessary for human understanding. Logic is ultimately derived from the Law of Identity, A=A. The nature of physical material existence is that every thing that exists has a specific set of characteristics. [*]

Logic (nor the uniformity of nature) transcend existence, for existence is all that exists. Consider the following syllogism.

a. Logic is necessary for human understanding.
b. If theism is true, then divine creation obtains.
c. If divine creation is true, then all in existence is contingent to God’s act of creation, and nothing in existence is necessary.
d. If theism is true, then logic cannot be necessary. (from b and c)
e. Theism is false. (from a and d)

Theists attack premise c by declaring that if logic is part of God’s nature, then its existence is a necessary consequence of divine causation. They may think this an easy escape from the problem, since they imagine God is a necessary entity from a theological standpoint, but it suffers from several unresolvable problems.

1. Theists often assert that non-believers borrow logic from the Christian worldview. This is absolutely irrelevant to the issue at hand, for it does not address the fact that logic becomes subjective if a consciousness creates it. The theist is only specifying the nature of that subjectivity. By so doing he is in fact supporting the argument above. Asserting logic is part of God’s nature does not change the fact that by so doing is to declare it originates from a consciousness, not from objective existence – which is the very definition of subjective. (This is an example of the subject-object reversal. Reality is objective. The imagination is subjective. By claiming logic is subjective, the theist reverses the epistemic priority of objective reality over subjective imagination.)

2. Theistic believers often discuss the nature of their imagined ruling consciousness, but they have absolutely no grounds for discussing the specifics of God’s nature for two reasons.

First, by acceptance of a fantasy God as Sovereign and Creator, the believer cannot assume anything about its properties any more than we can posit “complete entropy” of a system and then try to define physical properties thereof. The theist cannot refute the possibility that a fantasy of an infinite god or a malevolent spirit being is deluding her into believing the statement “God’s nature is logical. Under theism a person can no longer refute arguments based on extreme skepticism. The theist can only refute the idea of an invisible magic entity manipulating their mind, or being the victim of mental illness if her worldview entails self-contained existence.

Second, to discuss what she thinks is God’s nature, she must presume to have knowledge of that nature. Knowledge, however, is rooted in reality and is held in conceptual form.

“To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units), on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes (similarity is “the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree”); then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one integrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it. “A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.” - Leonard Peikoff, “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy”, “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, 131.

The only way to have perceptual knowledge is via our sensory experience. “Man’s senses are his only direct cognitive contact with reality and, therefore, his only source of information. Without sensory evidence, there can be no concepts; without concepts, there can be no language; without language, there can be no knowledge and no science.” – (Ayn Rand, "Kant Versus Sullivan", "Philosophy: Who Needs It", 90.) Since theism’s fantasy of a God cannot be detected by any means of sensory experience or instrumentation, it is impossible for any religious mystic to have perceptual information that can be used as isolated distinct perceptual units that can be the basis of a concept of God. Thus theism’s claim to have knowledge of the nature of God is patently false.

3. The theistic point that “logic is rooted in the nature of God” is a complete ad hoc rationalization: nothing about the notion of a god indicates that it must be necessarily logical or rational. Humans are capable of being both logical and illogical, it is clearly impossible for a more powerful being to not be able to do such a simple thing as make an illogical proposition.

4. Even if it was the case that a God actually existed and its nature was logical, there would be no necessary (in the sense of system K modal logic meaning it is not possibly false) relation between God’s inherent properties and its creation. A burden of proof is upon the God believers to prove their assertion that it necessarily is the case that a relation between what they imagine as God and objective reality obtains such that the basal attributes of their God transfer to objective reality by virtue of a creative action. Without such evidence sufficient to establish the thing as true, the assertion that “logic is rooted in the nature of God” cannot have any weight. The believers would need to prove that powerful beings are restricted in their creations to transferring their basal attributes to that which is created. Were the theist successful in such an endeavor, the religious house of cards would fall to the old rejoinder that a perfect creator cannot create an imperfect creation.

5. It is impossible to make sense of the proposition that “logic is part of God’s nature”. That this is so can be observed by taking note of the Transcendent Argument for God. TAG proposes that “logic is both dependent on God and necessary. ….. If logic is dependent on God it must be contingent. If logic is contingent then it is not a necessary part of human understanding. But logic is a necessary part of human understanding. Thus logic cannot be dependent on God since there is nothing inconsistent about denying the existence of God but there is in denying the principles of logic.” – (Michael Martin: “Butler's Defense of TAG and Critique of Tang” - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/butler.html). Logic cannot both be an intrinsic part of God’s actions and created by God.

6. Theism’s assertions are self-defeating. If logic existed first as a property of God, then it is a non-material principle, and divine causation is not necessary for its transference at all. All it would prove, at best, is that a non-material principle is involved, but there is a definite lack of specificity in theism’s claim. How is it that some properties of God’s nature are transferred to reality, but others are not? Theism’s claim that “our belief in logic is rooted in the nature of God and evidenced in creation itself” implies that it is logically necessary for one property of the nature of the alleged God to transfer to reality but that other predicated properties do not transfer. Why is that? The theist bears a burden of proof here to show why their case for logic transference does not also entail that their God’s alleged goodness, intelligence, order, morality, self-knowledge, sovereignty, power, justice, etc are also transferred by the creative act. In no sense is the burden of proof fulfilled by simply asserting the contrary position as a mystery.

7. Theism presumes that it makes sense to speak of logic as a non-material entity, which indicates a commitment to idealism. From my perspective, logic is an axiomatic fact of reality, and arises because of the fundamental nature of the material world. It makes no sense to speak of logic dissociated from the material world, any more than it makes sense to speak of immaterial consciousness.

[*] This is a consequence of spontaneous symmetry breaking form Gauge Invariance that occurred during or just prior to the inflationary epoch and cosmic reheating – The Conversion of Inflationary Potential Energy Into Matter. These were random processes as is readily seen from observation of the Cosmic Microwave Background – Blackbody Radiation.

The blackbody CMB and the acceleration of Universal Expansion means that the Big Bang was very much like a black hole singularity in that it was “maximally chaotic involving complete entropy. It implies that the big bang singularity behaves in a completely unpredictable manner in the sense that no physical laws govern its behavior. The unpredictability that pertains to Hawking's principle of ignorance is an unpredictability that is a consequence of lawlessness, not of human inability to know the laws. There is no law, not even a probabilistic law, governing the singularity that places restrictions on what it can emit.
Hawking writes that

A singularity can be regarded as a place where there is a breakdown of the classical concept of space-time as a manifold with a pseudo-Reimannian metric. Because all known laws of physics are formulated on a classical space-time background, they will all break down at a singularity. This is a great crisis for physics because it means that one cannot predict the future. One does not know what will come out of a singularity. – [S. W. Hawking, Breakdown of Predictability in Gravitational Collapse,' Physical Review D, 14 (1976), 2460.]

Deterministic or even probabilistic laws cannot obtain on the quantum level in the singularity, since there is no quantum level in the singularity; the space-time manifold that quantum processes presuppose has broken down. The singularity is a violent, terrifying caldron of lawlessness.” – “A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God's Nonexistence” (1992) Quentin Smith; http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html

(This also means that no ordering was applied to existence from outside of existence in the time after the Big Bang. But such ordering is required for the theist to assert the anthropic coincidences are evidence of an intelligent creator/designer. Classic hot big bang cosmology was, therefore, the death knell for theism.)