The Mind Set Free

So many choices

2010-07-25T16:33:00.004-04:00

So many choices in life. Are you sure you picked the right religion?

I have posted an excerpt from a soon to be published book, dealing with the many religious options available. Could it be that another path, other than the path you inherited, is the correct one? See religious tree here.

Some cosntructive criticism

2010-03-22T20:59:00.005-04:00

I haven't spent a lot of time on this website in the last two years. I have received some very interesting emails that I should have responded to. I hope to address some of those emails. Today, let's look at some construtive criticism:

I am not a religious person. I agree with pretty much everything on your website. However, let people believe what they want to believe in. If people find comfort in religion, why should this be a problem for any of us that don't agree with them? Sometimes, religion is the reason people rise from poverty and make their lives successful, and sometimes religion is the reason people are able to overcome hard times in their lives. Let people believe in what they want to believe in.

First, let me say that I am in no way forcing my beliefs on others. I started my site to share my experience, and the reasons that I had for changing my mind. If folks are interested, they may stay and learn from me. If not, they are welcome to surf on.

Are there times when one should try fervantly to change another's beliefs? What if somebody believes it is good to fly airplanes into buildings? What if somebody believes the earth is flat or that gays should be killed? Can you see that such beliefs could be harmful to a person, and to the people around him? So I think we can agree that, if a belief is harmful, it is fine to point out the problems with the belief.

Ok, now suppose someone believes that all those with the wrong belief about God suffer in hell for eternity. Can you see that such a belief can be harmful? Do those who burn in hell forever deserve it? If these people do not deserve hell, how can anybody find it comforting to worship a being who reportedly allows this unjust torture to continue forever? But if those people in hell do indeed deserve this eternal suffering, how can a person with such beliefs respect those whom he believes deserve such torture? Now if it is true that others deserve such torture, perhaps it is okay to believe it, but if it is not true, and those around us are not as worthless as this doctrine would indicate, perhaps people should be taught why they should believe otherwise.

Another person writes to me:

A number of years ago i began to question. I found your site and have come back many times.
Great writing.

I do wish you would remove your spelling errors. For instance your your using "than" for "then" and a few others.

Doing this will make your site a lot easier to recomend to more educated people. You may or may not care about this. It's just FYI.

I always struggled in my English and writing classes. Instead, math was always my subject. Much of my skill in writing comes from debating on the Internet and from writing this site. I have been learning on the fly.

My writing certainly doesn't reach the elegance of elite writers, but my writings have been special to some readers, who can identify with the folksy style. I am glad that I was able to reach people who might struggle with the vocabulary of the educated elite. So I do my part, reaching out to those who can identify with what I write.

Yes, when looking back over my writings I often find silly mistakes like "than" where I mean "then", "their" when I mean "there", "effect" when I mean "affect", etc. I have spent much time reviewing my site, and of course, have relied heavily on my spell checker. I'm sure there are many errors still there.

I appreciate any specific errors you point out to me, and certainly want to fix them if I can.

Where are the fossil pictures?

2010-03-18T20:50:00.009-04:00

Here is another email I received with a challenge to evolution:

I looked at some of your site and found it interesting. Actually your section on evolution made me ask afew questions...I am curious why their is no pictures on your website talking showing those evolution pictures?

There are plenty of pictures of intermediate fossils on the web, and I didn't bother copying them to my site. See for instance:

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/tran-nf.html

The ad hominem approach

2010-03-18T19:56:00.002-04:00

There is a simple form of argumentation known as ad hominem ("argument to the person"). Instead of responding to the issues, the ad hominem approach simply attacks the integrity of the other person. Is this valid argumentation? After all, even stupid people are sometimes right about some things, aren't they? So simply calling your opponent stupid, or hurling other insults at him, does nothing to prove that you are right, does it?

For some reason, LC, who earlier wrote a most unusal explanation of Genesis 1, has decided to turn to the ad hominem form of argument rather than address the obvious questions about his claims. Interestingly, LC's reply doesn't mention a single specific from my public writings, but rather, shares a canned list that he prepared four years ago!

Merle, thanks but I'm not interested so I won't go there. However, in anticipation of your response, I prepared the following and kept it waiting:

I skimmed your site a few days ago and, as I recall, it's the usual rehash of infidels.org canards. About four years ago, I found I was running across so many guys with profiles like yours, I made a list and I haven't changed a word since. How many items, in general, apply to you?

-Raised in a loving Southern Baptist home.
-Indoctrinated by the fear of hell.
-Doubts the existence of God.
-Becomes rational materialist.
-Determines to enlighten the world about the evil, bloodthirsty, make-believe God.
-Believes humans can save themselves from self-destruction.
-Well-read and uses standard atheist canards.
-Uses derash Bible exegesis.
-Waffles on Jesus' existence.
-Truth outside a science lab is subjective, a matter of opinion.
-Confesses ignorance of true economics.
-Recoils at "tinfoil hat" New World Order.
-Denigrates "ancient" Jews' God but quick to label someone else as anti-semite.
-Uses Nazi Germany analogies.
-Likes to bluster and bully.
-Unless personally convinced, any argument is false.
-Requires constant support, approval of other atheists

L[C]

Well folks, has LC done anything to prove that he is right and that I am wrong? Does copying a standard file designed to insult "guys with profiles like you" prove anything? Can LC do no better than argumentation by profiling?

My writings are a matter of public record. Everybody is welcome to read them, and see if I fit the profile that LC copied.

Also, the infidels.org site is a matter of public record. Curious readers might want to check it out, to see if LC's profiling matches the writings there.

More on the old earth:

2010-03-16T16:45:00.005-04:00

I received two replies to last week's post. Dwight writes again:

I am serious and happy and see a lot of humor in this ridiculous thing called life and do laugh out loud a lot. Most people do not have this benefit.

The 6,000 year old scam is just that no matter who tries to claim it or believes it. There is no claim of this in the Bible nor is that what it implies, if read closely with good reading comprehensions skills. You are not dealing in facts but straw dog arguments--Dwight

Interesting. So you, Dwight, see no claim in the Bible of a 6000 year old earth. As you wrote before, you think "it is made clear there is time distortion" in Genesis and that "one of God's days is like...a thousand years". You are expressing the day-age hypothesis, that is, that each "day"in Genesis could have been thousands of years long. As I mentioned previously, this claim only scratches the surface in reconciling Genesis with science. Why does Genesis list a different order of species origination from the order that science has found? Why does Genesis put birds before land animals? Why fruit trees before fish? And why do the genealogies of Genesis indicate that the first man lived 6000 years ago, when we have found human relics long before then? Do you have answers to such questions? If not, the day-age hypothesis doesn't come close to resolving the conflict.

It would be easier to accept that Genesis teaches that each "day" of creation was a long period of time, were it not that other Christians are equally insistent that the Bible is clear on something else. In the previous post, for instance, we saw an email from LC claiming that the six days of Genesis were not 6 periods of creation, but represented instead 6 days of revelation to a scribe.

So if the Bible is so clear about the meaning of Genesis 1, which way is it clear about? Are you right that Genesis 1 refers to 6 long periods of creation (apparently totalling 4.5 billion years), or is LC write that Genesis 1 clearly refers to 6 literal days of revelation?

If the Bible is so clear, why cannot the two of you decide if this refers to 6 literal days or 4.5 billion years? If the Bible is so clear, why cannot the two of you decide if Genesis 1 describes the actual periods of creation, or a time of revelation to a scribe?

And if the Bible cannot make such a simple matter clear, how can you trust anything you think you understand in the Bible? In the second letter I received this week, LC addresses this:

Merle, it's a pain-in-the-butt to leave a comment on your blog so I'll just pass one along here.

You state: "If the writer of Genesis 1 is universally misunderstood, is it also possible the writer of John 3:16 is universally misunderstood?"

Absolutely, and you are living proof. Millions also misunderstand John 3:17. They think Jesus is returning to earth to make things all better, He ain't.

Larry

OK, so I am living proof that people misunderstand John 3:16??? How is that? For I think the writer of John 3:16 is trying to tell us that God sent his son so that we could have everlasting life by believing in him. Is that not what it means? If I misunderstand John 3:16, please enlighten us as to what John 3:16 is really saying.

So do I, and the millions of Christians that agree with me on what John is trying to teach, completely misunderstand John 3:16? If so, how are you so certain that you do not also misunderstand John 3:16?

But if I, and the millions of Christians that agree with me, are correct in what we think John 3:16 is saying, why do you insist that I am living proof that John 3:16 is misunderstood?

Many resolve the problems in the Bible by finding symbolic meanings in the text. But as our correspondents have shown here, a Bible filled with cryptic, symbolic messages does little to clear up the confusion about the state of reality.

If someone wants to learn how the current world came to be I recommend science. Searching for cryptic meanings in ancient texts seems to work only if you first find the answers in science, and then reverse engineer your findings to determine a cryptic meaning in the text to match science. As we have seen here, the process of working back from science to symbolic meanings in scripture leads to conflicting symbolic interpretations.

Does the Bible teach an old earth?

2010-03-14T10:32:00.005-04:00

This week I received three emails regarding the age of the earth. In the first email MM advises to "familiarize yourself with the content better before making yourself look very foolish," but ones wonders if he took his own advice before writing to me. MM writes:

Your story about the bible stating that the earth is only 6,000 years old is pointless. The bible says mankind is roughly 6,000 years into his existence, it does not say anything about how old the earth is. The universe is obviously thousands or millions of years old, and that does not contradict the bible. When the bible says that the earth was created in 6 days, it is not saying 6- 24 hour periods. Besides the fact that the bible says that a day to God is equal to 1,000 of our years, the bible was obviously illustrating 6 creative periods, represented by "days." Also, it does not specify how long the earth sat in space without human existence. So, I propose that next time you write a story please familiarize yourself with the content better before making yourself look very foolish.

MM, have you followed your own advice, and familiarized yourself with my site before writing about what it says? If so, you would be aware that I wrote:

Many Christians have solved the problem by finding ways to interpret the Bible consistent with the geologic record. Some think the six days of Genesis are figurative representations of long eras, and not six literal days. Some think Genesis 1 is just a parable, an interesting poetic way of saying that God started it all. Some see the six days as representing the thought process of God deciding to create, not the actual acts of creation. There are many ways to interpret the Bible to fit the geologic evidence. So one way out of the difficulty is to find interpretations of the Bible to match science. (http://webspace.webring.com/people/xq/questioner/Bible1.htm)

Finding a way to make the Bible agree with an old earth only begins to solve the conflict between the Bible and science. Science has found that the order in which new species have arrived on earth does not match the order given in Genesis, that there were humans on earth long before the genealogies of Genesis would indicate, and that there was a long series of intermediate fossils leading to the first humans. Can MM reconcile these findings with the Bible? If so, I would like to know how he does that.

The next writer observes:

The 6,000 year old scam I think I first heard in the movie inherit the wind. I would hope no one claims that one LOL

Understanding Genesis is understanding a lot and few bible thumpers seem to even grasp key parts of it. For one thing it comes very close to describing a simple evolutionary process. Secondly it is made clear there is time distortion (one of Gods days is like being a thousand years to man), but did they have million or billion when it was written LOL The third thing is why they were barred from the Garden with deadly force (I am assuming a flaming sword is deadly LOL). No not for "sinning" LOL
Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Hmm as one of us, and the only way to control it was to deprive him of the fruit from the tree of life which gave immortality if eaten of on some regular basis. If you think about it, you are seeing some extremely advance thinking or technology being dumbed down to be told to extremely primitive men who wrote t down or possibly retold over generations until it was written down. I won't even mention the concept of taking a rib from Adam (bone marrow) to create a new engineered "creature" LOL

A few things to think about--Dwight

Dwight seems to LOL so often, it is difficult to know what we should take seriously, and where he is joking. The source of his merriment seems to be that some people think that young earth creationists actually exist. He calls this a "6000 year old scam." I hate to burst your bubble, Dwight, but yes, there are millions of people that teach that the earth is closer to 6000 years old than 4.5 billion years. See for instance, Evidence for a Young World.

Okay, Dwight, now that you see that there are actually people that teach the earth is less than 20,000 years old, can you perhaps stop laughing at those who know that young earth creationists exist, and help us to educate people in the findings of science?

Finally, LC writes:

Actually, there is another understanding of the Creation Story that works exceptionally well.

P. J. Wiseman, in his book Creation Revealed in Six Days, contends that about six thousand years ago, a scribe was inspired to write the story on a cuneiform tablet a day for six days. In other words, God didn't create the world in six days, instead, He simply took six days to reveal how He did it to a scribe who wrote the story.

We have simply lost the true meaning over the centuries. I have the book in case you'd like more info.

As I explained in the quote above, there are multiple ways to explain the conflict of the 6 days of Genesis with the findings of science. LC writes that the six days represent the six days it took to reveal it to the scribe who wrote it down. Okay, but if the scribe is trying to tell us what he learned during each of six days of revelation, couldn't he have expresssed himself more clearly? Can you understand how people--such as MM--could read Genesis 1, and not understand it to be saying that the scribe who wrote this took six days to learn about the billions of years of earth history? If God revealed Gensis 1 to this scribe, why is it that a very small percentage of people believe this view is the correct view? If most people have completely lost the meaning of this passage, what other passages have we completely lost the meaning to? If the writer of Genesis 1 is universally misunderstood, is it also possible the writer of John 3:16 is universally misunderstood? If we need to read Creation Revealed in Six Days to understand Genesis, why isn't Creation Revealed included in the canon of scripture?

So go ahead and propose your ideas of how Genesis may be teaching billions of years, but also take the time to think critically as to whether your explanation truly resolves the conflict.

Have you been bright-sided?

2010-02-21T10:15:00.005-05:00

Surely you have been told to maintain a positive attitude in life. Is it possible to be too positive? Can efforts to think positively cause one to miss oncoming dangers? Barbara Ehrenreich takes on these questions in an excellent book, Bright-Sided.

(Click to see more).

Laughing at the death of the uninsured

2009-11-23T21:23:00.002-05:00

Here is a video I need to share. A congressman is presenting his views on health care, and invites a woman onstage to share the story of how her pregnant daughter-in-law and the baby died several weeks ago because they did not have health insurance, or the money to pay for it. The audience, who came for a fight, and were in no mood to hear the woman's case, heckled her and laughed at her. Can you imagine that? They were laughing as a recently bereaved woman spoke of the tragedy.

The cold fact is that millions do not have health insurance, and thousands die every year because of that. Do you care? Or do you laugh? Would you be willing to make a sacrifice if it would help these people?

Many people hate government programs and the thought of the govenment stepping in, but these same people are more than willing to accept medicare and VA benefits. Why are we so certain that we could not get together and appoint government leaders who would work out a solution to this problem?

And yet folks ignore the problem.

And they laugh.

Where is our compassion? How can we build this country with attitudes like this?

Site under construction

2009-11-11T05:55:00.002-05:00

I've been reviewing my main site lately, and seeing some needs for upgrades. I have recenlty updated the essay on Bible Errors at http://webspace.webring.com/people/xq/questioner/Bible1.htm and updated broken links. I expect to update other pages in the coming weeks.

Should we Search Instead of Research?

2009-11-01T09:11:00.003-05:00

Here is another email from my inbox:

I just went tru ur website and read the whole article about self-esteem. While it was hearting to know that you knew scripture so very well but sadly I felt you have used them out of context. And a text out of context is a pretext.

Your arguments may sound intelligent and philosophical but let's remember that God is beyond all such realms' He goes beyond it which is called Faith. I don't wish to argue or impose my views upon you as you did and continue to do by keeping your website on.

But I want to pray for you that someday you find Jesus, You know why? He is waiting to receive you.

I am just 39 years and have known my Jesus since my childhood and better so in the last 17years. I can give you countless testimonies of the wonderful things He has done for me.

And yes He does love EVERYONE. Yeah even the atheist. He works even through them in the world. God is not waiting to accept us. If we do He is pleased and if we don't (as I presume is the case with you) He will still love us, bless us and use us in this world.

You have done a RESEARCH on Christ but I pray you SEARCH for Christ. That's the difference.

I wish I could really debate with you one-o-one but you know what I have discovered this to be true - Christ is an experience and not a subject for argument or debates.

May you experience Him. I know someday you will. He won't leave you until you have found Him brother. Until such times you can be assured of my prayers for you and your loved ones.

I apologize if I have hurt you in anyway. Pls. forgive me.

But I felt the urge in my heart to respond and not react. Until next time have a blessed life.

God bless you and yours.

You write that you felt I used verses out of context. I am sorry you felt that way. Can you understand that reading something and "feeling" that what you are reading is out of context does not prove that what you read is out of context? I would be more interested in knowing if there is a verse you have determined to be out of context. Have you found a verse that can objectively shown to be taken out of context on that webpage? If so, which verse? Please explain why that verse doesn't mean what I think it means. Facts would be more helpfully then telling me you read it and get a feeling that this is wrong.

You say my argument sounds intelligent, but that God goes beyond this into the realm that is called faith. Ah, but if my argument sounds intelligent, is not the next step to determine if it is indeed intelligent? How does it make sense to ignore an argument that looks intelligent, and simply take it by faith that the reasoning presented is wrong? Shouldn't we actually check to see if the reasoning is wrong?

Others take it by faith that you are wrong. Do you agree that it is right for Muslims to take it by faith that you are wrong? If you do not think that the faith of a Muslim overrides the facts, then can you understand how others might think that your faith does not override intelligent arguments to the contrary? And if your faith does not trump my reasoning, perhaps you might want to consider my reasoning.

You admit that I have done research, but ask me to instead search for Christ. Have you read my story (here)? Searching for Christ was the theme of my youth. When in my own mind I had found Christ, life was all about deepening that walk with Christ, continually searching for more. So I have done exactly what you ask. If not, what exactly would you like me to do that I haven't yet tried?

You say Christ is an experience and not a subject for argument. OK, but whose experience is right? Is the one who experiences Christ as the one who leads him on a crusade to kill others experiencing the true Christ? Is the Mennonite who experiences Christ as the one that leads him to oppose war--all war--experiencing the true Christ? Were both the Irish Catholics and Protestants experiencing the true Christ as they fought each other? Our all claimed experiences of Christ the true experience of Christ? If not, how do you know your experience is the right one, and that those who experience something contrary to yours are wrong?

You say that even if we con't accept Jesus, "He will still love us, bless us and use us in this world." Uh, and then send us to hell to burn for ever and ever in eternal torment with no chance for mercy, regardless of how much we beg for forgiveness? Is that part of your message? Why did you leave that out?

Speaking of self-esteem, in what way can that help our self-esteem if we are such evil people that we deserve to be tormented in hell forever?

I would love to hear back from you, or from anyone who agrees with the message you present.

I've moved

2009-10-20T20:02:00.001-04:00

My website has moved to a new address, http://webspace.webring.com/people/xq/questioner/index.htm .

If you think others will be helped by this site, please link to it. Thanks.

Christian Forum General Apologetics, RIP

2009-05-18T06:59:00.003-04:00

It has been my privilege to spend many hours at the Christian Forums website, debating the issues that I present at my site. That site is now under new management. Most of the threads from those days have been deleted. Skeptics are no longer welcome at that site. Unfortunately, many of the discussions that I reference at my site no longer exist. Someday I will update my site, and remove those links. See Christian Forum General Apologetics, RIP .

The Way of the Master

2009-03-12T21:08:00.003-04:00

Previously I posted that the book, "The Way of the Master" includes an extensive quote from my site. I now find that this book is part of an agressive witnessing site entitlted "The Way of the Master." Here are some videos that refute the claims made at the site about evolution. I recommend these videos.

Part 1.

Part 2.

Part 3.

And here is a good video on transitional fossils.

Is God Imaginary?

2009-03-05T21:42:00.005-05:00

I found this thought-provoking video. Can you answer these questions within the context of your faith, without resorting to unlikely rationalizations? Do you come to the conclusion that God is imaginary?

Can we enjoy believing in a real Jesus?

2009-02-23T06:21:00.004-05:00

RS writes:

I just read your tretise again. I like your questions. In fact I've asked a lot of them myself. You imply some conclusions that I'm not comfortable with however. We could draw some firm conclusions if all of the books that were ever written about everything were still available. But they're not. In the ancient, illiterate world I don't think many books were written in the first place. How many books do you think there were in circulation 2 thousand years ago? What did people write about back then? Who were the authors and who were the audiences? Why did they even write books? Did they get paid for writing them? Were there professional authors back then, like there are now?

So, I'm uneasy about some of your conclusions; like maybe Jesus didn't actually exist because we haven't found more than a couple of ancient books outside the Bible that even mention him. We don't have all the books that were written available for examination. We can't conclude that an event didn't happen just because there is no evidence for it. The event could have happened but the evidence is gone. To be rational I think we have to reserve the possibility that Jesus did exist. I think we also have to consider the possibility that mingled within possible myths, legends, and embellishments contained in the Bible is a kernel or 2 of truth.

You seem to have drawn your conclusions more on faith than on evidence. So I guess you and I are still following a practice we thought we left religion for: believing in things that can't be proven or disproven. I enjoy believing there was a real Jesus. I enjoy reading what he puportedly said for the most part. There is wisdom and insight there in some of it. I enjoy reading Pauls teachings. I accept from the Bible generally , what is relevant for me and ignore the rest, and I find meaning in it. I don't believe there is a final exam at the end of life so to me it's okay if you reject everything. All I'm suggesting is that because we don't know all there is to know we should be open to the possibilities.

Cheers,

You are uneasy with reaching the conclusion that Jesus did not exist, for we do not have a complete historical record of that time. That is true. We cannot resolve the issue of his existence with certainty either way. And I make no claim that I know it with certaintly. I do think he probably did not exist, but I am not dogmatic about that claim. (See The Jesus Puzzle for more information on why many think he did not exist.)

You say you enjoy reading the reported words of Jesus. That is all well and good. There are a lot of good ideas in the Q Gospel and Thomas, the two books that are believed to be closest to the timeframe of Jesus. And there are lessons to be learned from writers like Luke who built on this tradition. I am in no way saying we cannot learn from these books. The point is that there is no way to prove that these books represent the words of a single man named Jesus, the words of one man who used Jesus as a pseudoname, or a compilation of sayings of many people. When it comes to enjoying the moral lessons there, one can do that regardless of who had a hand in preparing those documents.

"Ask whatever you need to, and let Him provide the answers."

2009-02-18T05:30:00.003-05:00

Another reader observes:

I stumbled upon your website and wanted to ask something. In your own words, taken directly from your website, you state:

"To convince a skeptic that he is wrong, you will need to do more then state that you are right and he is wrong. You will need evidence."

I simply want to ask...what "evidence" have you provided that the Bible is not inspired? Your website is a multitude of questions without answers. Can you, with your scientific mind, provide evidence that the Bible was not inspired by God? Can you provide evidence that God does not exist? You pose very good questions on your website, however, you fail to answer any of them. In the end, you simply tell me that since I can not provide evidence that you deem sufficient, I am incorrect in my beliefs and you are correct in yours. Why does it have to be me providing the evidence, and not you? Even if I were to tell you of all the wonderful ways God has blessed my life since inviting the Holy Spirit of Jesus into my heart and doing my best to live in His will...you would ask me whether wonderful things ever happened before, and you would tell me that it's all just coincidence. So, one man's "evidence" is not necessarily another's. Based on the litany of questions on your website it seems to me that you are searching. Don't look in the Bible, and likewise don't look to science (which will only explain to you the matters of this three dimensional universe and time)...just look to Jesus and ask. Take the time to sit peacefully, open your heart, and invite Him in. He'll stand at the door waiting for as long as it takes, but he won't break it down to get in...it's got to be your choice. Then ask whatever you need to, and let Him provide the answers.

God Bless...and I hope you find what you're truly looking for.

I respond here:

What evidence have I provided about the Bible? What about the long list of contradictions at my site? What about the detailed descriptions of moral problems with the Bible? Could God have written such things? Please read what I wrote. If you don't think that evidence is sufficient, please explain why.

You say, "you simply tell me that since I can not provide evidence that you deem sufficient, I am incorrect in my beliefs and you are correct in yours. " But of course, I never said any such thing, or anything close to it. Failure to find evidence for one belief in no way proves that another belief is correct. My views must stand on their own evidence.

You say I fail to answer any of the questions at my site. Again, have you even attempted to read my site? The site is filled with questions, and my responses to those questions. I think I have made my position very clear. If you are confused about my position, please ask.

You say one man's "evidence" may not be enough to convince another. Exactly. You are not convinced with the evidence that Iesha presented for Islam, are you? You are not convinced with the evidence for the book of Mormon, are you? Can you understand that some evidence is not convincing? Some evidence is valid, some is not. The fact that you found "evidence" may not mean the evidence is valid. For even you refer to your "evidence" in quotes, indicating that even you see that this is not convincing evidence.

You tell me to open my heart and invite Jesus in. I have indeed done that, many, many times. And no, I did not get all the answers. Yes, when I was a Christian, I thought I had a direct line to the throne, and yes, I thought I was getting answers directly from God, but as I explained at my site, others were using the exact same link to the throne and finding dramatically different answers. Have you never experienced that? Have you never once found a Christian who prayed to God and concluded something different from you? If this method you propose is so valid, why do people who use if find such radically different answers?

"I ended up in a place I should be in"

2009-02-17T05:27:00.002-05:00

JF writes:

I just read some of your points. You are very creative. There is a lot of smoke and mirror's for you to hide behind.

I think you should look closer. The answer may be there.

Good luck on your ongoing search for the truth.

My search was long and winding and I ended up in a place I should be in.

I will give you a hint,

I will pray for you,

JF, I am glad that, after a long search, you ended up in a place you should be.

Can you understand that, just because a place may be right for you, it may not necessarily be right for me? After all, some will tell me that they have found a place that is right for themselves, and their faith is very different from yours. Should I follow Islam, for example, since some have found it to be a place that is right for them? Will you immediately turn and follow all religions for which others declare that they have found it to be right for them? No? Then why would you expect others to immediately turn and follow your religion just becuase you declare it is right for you? Can you understand how most people would not regard your argument to be convincing evidence that they should abandon their views and accept your faith?

May I ask you how you know this is the place for you? Is it because of social pressure, and the fear of saying things that disagree with your peers? Is it because you have come to the faith you knew as a kid, and you feel secure in not having to face the real world with its many conflicting beliefs? Or is it because you have found new evidence that convinces you of a certain truth? If it is because of new evidence, what evidence are you referring to?

You say that you will pray for me. Fine, but what will you pray for? Will you pray that I abandon the knowledge I now have, and accept your faith, even though I sincerely think the evidence points me in another direction? Would your God honour such intellectual dishonesty? And if your God honors intellectual dishonesty, how would I know I could trust him?And if you are praying that I will be informed of a new fact, what fact is it that you want me to know? Why not just tell me?

I am sorry that you think my site is smoke and mirrors. I wrote it as an honest attempt to explain my views, and why I came to those views. If I am mistaken, it was an honest mistake, and I would like to know where I am wrong. Can you understand how simply calling my site smoke and mirrors does not address the issues? If I am wrong, where am I mistaken?

Okay, maybe not so much Paul as Mark and Luke

2009-02-12T20:45:00.008-05:00

I see that WisdomUnchained has responded in detail to my post about Paul. I will address him here.

WisdomUnchained,

You write,

I have read the 3 parts starting with the Conspiracy of Silence so I understand your reasoning that Paul was speaking of Jesus on a spiritual plane and not as an earthly person. My initial reaction is that a person, after reading all of Paul's writings, would have to make a pretty significant leap of faith to agree with that. This in light of the fact that the gospel of Luke makes it clear that the Jesus being spoken about was an earthly person. Luke of course was a travelling companion of Paul so it seems unlikely that he would have somehow been in disagreement with Paul over whether Jesus was a real person or not.

I'm glad that you were willing to read the other side. You are certainly on the way to deeper understanding. Many refuse to read that which they disagree with. You and I--and probably most of those reading this--are among those who are willing to explore the thoughts of those who disagree with us.

Now that you have read the skeptical view, you may want to go back and read Paul for what he says. People are so used to hearing bits and pieces in church, where the speaker jumps between Paul and the gospels, leaving one with the impression that they are all speaking the same message. But if one isolates just the teaching of Paul, and reads it by itself, without interpreting it in the light of the first five books of the New Testament, it is hard to see that Paul is speaking of an earthly Jesus. That was the point I was responding to. The argument had been raised that Paul was a good early witness to the reality of the story of Jesus. Paul certainly testifies that he believed in a Jesus, but does he witness to the fact that Jesus lived on earth? That is the question.

Are we justified in reading Paul on his own, without viewing him in light of the first 5 books? Yes, if Paul wrote long before those books, wrote to a different audience, and had no contact with those other books or their authors. Is there any convincing evidence that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were known by Paul?

Interestingly, your response shifts completely from the original topic of the writings of Paul, and turns back to the four gospels as your source. I addressed those books at Are the Gospels Historical?, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? , and When Were the Gospels Written?.

You refer to Luke, the companion of Paul, as the writer of the third gospel. How do you know that he wrote that book? The third gospel is completely anonymous, with no indication within the book itself of who the author is. Nobody even mentions Luke as a writer of a gospel until 150 years after Christ. And even then, we are told only that a Luke wrote the book, and not told which Luke. And yet your whole argument here hinges on the assertion that this book was written by Luke, the companion of Paul. Do you have any evidence for that claim? And if you admit that there is no convincing evidence that this Luke wrote that book, then the argument that Paul's intimate companion taught an earthly Jesus disappears. One is then left once more with turning to the writings of Paul himself to find out what Paul taught.

The gospel of Mark, who of course is considered the disciple Peter's interpreter, also speaks of an earthly Jesus. Since from Paul's writings we know that he had extensive interaction with Peter, and Peter claimed to be a direct disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, it seems pretty unreasonable that there was some major miscommunication between all four of them over whether Jesus was a real earthly person who had died just 20 some years before or not.

Again, I see an assertion here about the authorship of Mark. Once again, there is no mention within the gospel of who the author is. Again, we find nobody identifying this particular book with Mark until 150 years after Jesus. How do you know it was written by Peter's interpreter?

Paul mentions Peter, but nowhere mentions anything about Peter actually being with a physical Jesus on earth. In fact, Paul very clearly indicates that his own spiritual visions of Jesus are of equal validity with what Peter saw. Is there any indication anywhere that Paul thought Peter saw anything more than a vision? If I look only at the writings of Paul, I find there no evidence there that Peter physically saw Jesus.

Mark most likely wrote to an isolated group away from Palestine who had no contact with the Jerusalem apostles. If the Jerusalem apostles were even still alive at that point, they probably had no contact with the book of Mark, and so never refuted it.

If you would like to claim Mark was written before 70 AD, I would be interested in your reasons. For I find strong evidence for a date of Mark after 70 AD.

Peter even addresses this in 2 Peter 1:16 where he says, “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty”..

Excuse me, but how do you know that Peter wrote the book of 2 Peter? 2 Peter is widely regarded as a second century pseudepigraph, that is, it was written by somebody other than Peter. See 2 Peter. What are your reasons for thinking Peter wrote that book?

Be that as it may, that still doesn't answer the underlying question. What are your thoughts on why Paul, who from the writings attributed to him was obviously a highly educated zealous Jew, who spoke and wrote fluently in multiple languages, was a man of reason, a roman citizen, a rising star in his Jewish sect of the Pharisees, and one who had already demonstrated his contempt for Christians by admittedly having them put to death; Why would he have abandoned his zealous Jewish beliefs to convert to Christianity? All this in light of the fact that he was trading a life of success and respect for one of prison, beatings, and suffering that lead to his own death by crucifixion. Whether it was an encounter with the physical or spiritual Jesus, it was a catastrophic event that compelled him to make a 180 degree change in his lifestyle based on 1400 years of tradition. A reasonable man, as Paul obviously was, just doesn’t do that without a dramatic event.

Did Paul encounter a catastrophic event? Sure! It was the Diaspora. Paul appears to have been one of the many Jews that were spread by the Romans across the area, intermixed with believers in many religions. In those desperate times in which people had to learn to cooperate with people of many cultures to survive, many adopted parts of other religions. So it is no big surprise that Paul combined elements of Judaism with elements of other religions, such as the religions that taught that a dying savior god in the spiritual realm brings salvation.

There is no doubt that Paul was zealous about his religion. Many are zealous about many different religions. What is in question is whether Paul taught that his Jesus had recently walked on earth as a man. You will have no problem convincing me that Paul was zealous. The question before us is this: What message was Paul zealous for?

I look forward to reading your response.

What about Paul?

2009-02-08T12:24:00.004-05:00

I have contended that the early records tell little about an historical Jesus. We have no record of anybody definitively writing of the earthly Jesus revealed in the gospels until about 70 AD when Mark wrote his book. If the earthly life of Jesus was so important, why did nobody choose to write about it until 40 years later? Could it be that Mark was simply writing a novel which was later adopted as truth, and that the story has very little basis in historical fact?

Here is a reader's response:

I just came across your website this evening and I must admit that I haven't read through everything yet. I'm curious though about what your thoughts are on the books of the new testament written by Paul. I read your comments on the gospels and how you question whether they are eye witness accounts or not. Paul on the otherhand is credited with writing much of the new testament. He describes his seemingly miraculous conversion to belief in Christ and then travels around until he is killed proclaiming Christ. What are your thoughts on these books and Paul himself? Are you skeptical that he was a real person? If you think he was a real person, why would he have fabricated the story he did especially unto death? The other option is that he was deceived by the Apostles but he seemingly would have had an easy time of validating their stories with other eye witnesses since he lived during the same time as the original Apostles. I can understand how zealots in our own modern age can be deceived and convinced by faith in whatever religion to give their life as a final act of obedience. They take the word of a man before them. If you read the writtings of Paul though, he comes across as a man of reason. It doesn't seem reasonable that he could be deceived given his proximity to others who could disprove the Apostle's claims. Even if he was deceived, why make up the lie about his conversion? And what could his movitation have been to perpetuate that lie and Christ? Before proclaiming Christ, he was apparently a rising star in the Jewish community, a roman citizen, a free man, with power, influence, and likely money. Why trade all that for a lie?

Yes I believe that "Paul" was a literal man, for we have a collection of books written by "Paul". Although we can't be absolutely certain that the person who wrote these books was called "Paul" by those around him, it seems obvious that a man existed who wrote these books.

The problem is that Paul does not testify to the fact of an earthly Jesus. Paul describes a Jesus in heaven, who is doing a work on a spiritual plane. If this Jesus had had an earthly existence before this heavenly work, the letters of Paul bypass it. Yes, Paul refers to a death and resurrection, but the experience he refers to appears to be a heavenly experience, not one that happened on earth. You can read more about this at Conspriacy of Silence.

So the books of Paul, rather than being a convincing argument for the earthly resurrection, actually support the view that Jesus was considered to be only a heavenly figure by the earliest Christians. Not until Mark came along do we have a record of anyone reporting that the story happened on earth.

"God's ways are higher"

2009-02-08T11:41:00.007-05:00

Where have I been? It's been a busy year, and I haven't spent much time on this blog. Several have written emails to me in the past year, but I have not yet responded. Let's get back to some of your concerns.

One person observes:

I also was brought up in a very devout Mennonite family and have recently found myself having questions about God, creation, the Bible, my life. You name it - I have questions about it.

I am basing what I am writing on the belief that there is a God and He is Creator.

As I read through the articles on your website I was struck by a thought - if we could understand everything about the way the earth was created, human nature, science, the mind, etc... through human intellect and reasoning wouldn't that, in itself, nullify God. It seems to me that one of the attributes of God is that God's ways are higher than our ways and God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts. If we could figure everything out using our human mind and understanding that would mean we are equal to God - just as intelligent as He is. Is that possible?

I am grappling within myself about the questions I have about God: How did the earth come to be? Why are there so many, what seem to be, inconsistencies in creation, the Bible, theology - just as you have written?

But then I think of my own experience and how I have felt God's presence in such remarkable ways. I have seen miraculous things happen. Is that just my emotions, my mind, nature? It is written that we are to walk by faith and not by sight. Where is faith in all of this?

Could it be that God has left things unanswered - not all aspects of things - but that perfect connection, the perfect answer, the one thing that nails down the theory for the very fact that it requires faith to believe in Him? I don't know. I'm just putting it out there.

Right now, I hold to my belief in God, not because I have all the answers, but precisely because I don't.

Thanks for listening,

Could it be that God's ways are higher than ours, and that we really can't understand him. Sure! That is certainly possible. In fact, if a God did create this world, then it seems obvious that his ways would be higher than ours.

If God's ways are higher than ours, does this prove that this person has the correct religion? I think not. For if this person could prove he is right, since God is unknowable, then religions that radically differed with her could make the same claim. But religions differ greatly. Can all be proved to be right by using this argument? Can you see that an argument that leads to the conclusion that all religions are right cannot be a valid argument?

If God is not fully knowable, doesn't that lead us to the position of agnostism? If God's ways are above us, and we can't fully know those ways, then what is wrong with saying, "I don't know?" Why "nail down the theory" of one faith by accepting it on faith, when you know that you would be "nailing down the theory" of another faith if you were in different circumstances, with everyone around you nailing down another theory?

The writer speaks of feeling God's presence, but how can she be sure of what she felt? For if God's ways are unknowable, and she feels comfort, how can she know God comforts? If she feels guidance, how can she know God guides? To assume that these feeling come directly from God implies that we know what God wants to convey to us. But if God's ways are above us, and we can't understand them, how can we make definitive statements about how Gop wants us to feel? And if we can't know how God wants us to feel, how can we be sure that a particular feeling was caused by a direct intervention from God?

So no, I don't understand that the argument that our ignorance about God proves that a certain religion is right about God. That conclusion just doesn't follow.

The greatest threat to America

2008-05-18T10:04:00.003-04:00

What is the greatest threat to America? Many fear terrorism or global warming. These are serious concerns, but I do not think either of these is our greatest threat. Nor do I think that scientific illiteracy, irrationality, war, or environmental damage is the greatest threat. All of those problems are real, and all contribute to our vulnerability, but there is a far greater danger. The greatest threat is this: we are running out of cheap oil, and this has staggering implications for our way of life.

Surely, we will find it harder to supply our needs for oil. We have searched virtually the entire planet with high-tech gadgets, and are finding little additional oil. For the last 25 years we have consumed far more oil than we have discovered. Each year the amount of oil demanded goes up, but the amount of oil discovered goes down. By 2006, the rate of discovery was down to 6 billion barrels per year, but the production rate was 28 billion barrels per year. Folks, that can't go on forever. If we consume 28 billion barrels each year and find 6 billion new barrels each year, eventually we will run out, and will be left with a trickle of oil. What will then happen to our economy?

Okay, so someday we won't have as much gas. Can we just pass this problem on to the next generation? No, the problem is facing us now. The more we pump from the existing oil wells, the harder it becomes to maintain the flow out of the wells. Thus, oil fields tend to reach a peak in production, and this peak generally occurs about 40 years after the oil is discovered at that field. When enough of fields peak, the entire region reaches a peak, and oil output starts to decline. Mounting evidence indicates that worldwide oil production has reached, or nearly reached, its peak. Production rates have been flat for the last 5 years, and the output for 2007 was lower than the output for 2006. Evidence indicates world oil production will fall to less than 95% of its current production sometime before 2020--perhaps even within the next 2 years--and to less than 50% sometime between 2025 and 2050.

But world demand has increased, especially in developing countries like China and India. We are headed for oil shortages.

Okay, can we turn to other liquid fuels, such as ethanol from corn or synthetic gasoline from coal? These fuels are expensive, even though they are heavily subsidized by the government. And ethanol has the problem that large fields that formerly grew food have been converted to sources of ethanol, posing the danger of world famines. Also, synthetic fuel from coal is polluting and contributes greatly to global warming. If we were to use coal to replace our oil supplies, even our coal reserves would shortly be exhausted. So there are problems with putting other fuels in our cars.

Okay, so maybe we need to rely on something other than liquid fuels. But if this is so, what energy sources will power our future transportation needs? Obviously, we can't attach huge solar panels or windmills onto our cars, and nobody really wants to fire up the coal stove in the trunk to power her steam-driven car to work. We could install large solar cells and windmills on land to make electricity, but how do we get that power to our cars? Batteries are expensive, notoriously limited in range, and frequently wear out. And using electric to make hydrogen to power cars is inefficient. Further, we either need to compress the hydrogen to very high pressures, or cool it to a liquid at very low temperatures in order to carry enough fuel in the car to travel a reasonable range. Both processes are expensive, and create serious hazards. In addition, hydrogen molecules are so small, they tend to escape from any container we put them in. Do you really want a tank of leaky, explosive, compressed hydrogen in your car in your garage? Alternative energy sources are limited in their value to transportation.

Okay, so we may need to cut back on vacation driving. That will help for a while, but eventually we will need to make major sacrifices. And how is that going to happen? Most likely we will rely on the laws of supply and demand, and we will simply let the price of gasoline and heating oil rise until consumption falls. Prices could rise until people cannot afford things they consider necessities, such as driving to work, or maintaining the house at a comfortable temperature. How will we then live?

Okay, so times may get rough. Not very long ago, folks survived without any gas, and they seemed to be happy. Can we just go back to a simpler life? It would be nice if the solution was that easy. We forget that in the 1800's, folks either lived in dense cities and towns, where they could walk or ride the train everywhere they needed to go, or they lived in the country and owned horses for transportation. Those of us who live in suburbia will not easily be able to go back to either mode of transportation. Our suburbs are too spread out for practical pedestrian travel, and our yards are not big enough to pasture horses. We have built suburbia, not considering that it becomes almost unusable once the gas is gone.

Okay, so maybe we need to start rearranging our suburbs to be walkable. Fine, but more than just transportation is at stake. Oil is used to make plastics, and many other items we consume. Most importantly, oil is used to make fertilizer and pesticides, and to fuel our tractors. Without oil, our entire farm system is in jeopardy. This is serious. Not only will we need to cut back to a simpler life, but we may find that there is not enough food to feed everybody. In 1900, before petroleum fueled the green revolution, there were only 1.5 billion people. Now there are over 6 billion people. If farming must eventually cut back to the methods of 1900, how many people will the world be able to feed? And how will the world cut back the population level to a sustainable level? Will we rely on wars and famine, or will we find more civilized methods? Those are big questions.

The implications of all of this are serious. When we add in scientific illiteracy, decline of rationalism, and religious intolerance, we may find society unable to deal with the new problems. Society could disintegrate into superstition and wars over resources.

Through all of this there is hope. There is a chance that widespread development of nuclear fusion energy, geothermal energy, or improved solar cells could relieve some of the problem, but that is not certain. Technology has done wonders for us, but that does not prove that it could solve these future problems. Science and engineering are constrained by the laws of nature. They are not magic systems that are guaranteed to supply all of our needs. They are constrained by reality. Will reality allow us to obtain the energy we need? We have known about fusion and solar cells for a long time, but fusion is nothing more than a distant dream at this point, and solar cells still chug along at low efficiencies and high costs.

Perhaps we will find it in ourselves to develop the new technologies needed. Perhaps we will find ways to reorganize our suburbs and transportation systems, and find ways to cut back on the over-population and materialism that eats away at our natural resources. The path forward is a serious challenge to all of us.

And that is why I write that running out of cheap oil is the most serious threat to our county. Although the topic drifts from the stated intent of this site, it is of vital importance. I expect that I may be writing more about this at my site.

A faith in God that cannot be moved by evidence

2008-04-07T21:02:00.002-04:00

The debate about evolution with Mike Purington (which began here) continues. At first Purington seemed to be arguing for his view from science, but his later writings indicate that he is really relying on theology as his source, not science. Purington writes with approval of "a faith in God that cannot be moved no matter how much circumstantial evidence is produced." If the evidence does not matter, why even pretend to be interested in the evidence?

For the record, I respond to Purington here.

Horse Sense

2008-02-03T15:37:00.000-05:00

A reader tries to explain the horse fossils without evolution. He writes:

I just thought I would reply to one of your statments you made. In my opinion, even if every question is answered.. people tend to believe in what they believe anyway.

You ask Pastor Al this:
How do you explain all of the fossil animals similar to modern horses and zebras? What are the Hyracotherium, Epihippus, Mesohippus , Miohippus, Merychippus, and Dinohippus, if not intermediates? And why do we find those creatures buried in strata older than 2 million years, but no modern horses there? And why do we find modern horses in strata younger than 2 million years, but no Hyracatherium? And why is there a progression in these fossils, if they are not intermediates?

What I have read about Horse Evolution:

1. If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed 'earliest' horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! O. C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where 'both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus'.1 In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: 'Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.' Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?

2. There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.

3. The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly 'intermediate' stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.

4. Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 43 centimetres (17 inches) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.

I repond:

First, I notice that most of this was simply copied from another site http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html. Why didn't you simply post a link, rather than copy from the site? The article you copy made many mistakes. Did you ask if this stuff is true before you blindly copy it from the Internet?

You say that early horse fossils are found right next to modern horse fossils. What is your documentation for this claim? Are you not aware that simply making a claim on the Internet does not make it true? Don't you need evidence?

The claim that early horses have been found with modern horses frequently gets batted around the Internet, but nobody seems to have any documentation for when and where this find happened. See for instance, Did Hyracotherium and Equus Live at the Same Time?, to see one man's attempt to find the source for this claim, and the lack of evidence for it. You see, Hyracotherium lived millions of years before modern horses ever existed. If you ever found thoses fossils together, it would be earth-shattering news in the field of geology. And yet somehow this claim gets made repeatedly by uninformed people who copy what they have heard, and never stop to ask exactly when and where this amazing find occured.

So you are getting off to a bad start here. You simply copied somebody's claim off the Internet, and that claim cannot be supported with any real evidence.

And yes, of course, the early fossils were found on the surface. That is where fossils are. But not all layers at the surface are the same age. That is why scientists date the rocks to see how old the fossils are. And the early horse fossils always date over 50 million years. If you believe otherwise, please show me evidence of a particular fossil that differs with this claim. Simply copying a false statement that has been published on the Internet is not a valid argument.

You say there are cases where living horses have multiple toes. That may be true, but it is certainly rare. But 50 million years ago, all horse had multiple toes, and none had hoofs. Now can you explain why that is so? The most obvious explanation is that modern horses had not yet evolved.

You mention that three-toed horses and one-toed horses were found in the same layer, and ask if this doesn't suggest that they were two different species. Yes, of course, that is exactly what it suggests. Horse evolution is known to have occurred in a branching fashion, in which multiple species were alive on different branches at one time. This has been known for a long time. Eventually some one-toed horses evolved before all branches of three-toed horses died out. That does nothing to contradict the statement that there has been a progression through time, with more and more modern traits introduced into the record as time advanced.

You say the horse fossils come from multiple sites. Of course! You wouldn't seriously suggest that all of horse history should have occurred in the same meadow, and that all we should need to do is dig down into that meadow to see an example of all past horses. Horses are extremely mobile. Even if they traveled at a rate of only 1 mile every 10 years, in a million years they could easily circle the globe. And land bridges frequently existed between North America and Asia. So in 60 million years, we can expect that horses could be found all over the globe, not just in the same spot.

You ask why there would be variations in the number of ribs. Why not? Many things were changing with time. There was no linear progression from eohippus (hyracatherium) to modern horse, but rather, a series or branches in many different directions. So this is not at all unusual.

You mention the variations in size in modern horses, but that doesn't begin to address the findings of the fossil record. Ancient horses were very different from modern horses in many aspect, not just size. So you cannot simply ignore eohippus as though it were simply a short horse.

So the horse arguments you copied from the web do nothing to refute the findings of horse fossils.

You go on to mention several other arguments which have been answered many other times in the past, so I won't get into them now. You can leave them as a comment here if you want. I think it is sufficient to say you have not begun to explain away the horse evidence.

Why are there no records of civilization beyond 10,000 years ago?

2008-02-03T09:08:00.000-05:00

Here is another email from a supporter.

I really enjoyed your site, and the easy manner with which you deal with difficult subjects. I am a former evangelical christian who, over time, like you, came to realize there was another side to the story, with overwhelming evidence to support it.

I do have one question though, that you may be able to help me with. This is particularly an issue for a christian friend of mine. Every time we discuss or debate the age of the earth/universe, he always resorts to "why are there no records of civilization beyond 10,000 years ago?"

It is enough for me to accept that beyond 10,000 years ago, people didn't write, period. But that is unsatisfactory for him. So, my question to you is, is there strong evidence of civilizations beyond 10,000 year ago? Do you have any links or info that would show this?

Appreciate any help or advice you can offer. And keep up the great work!

That is is good question, and it is one that I had pondered for a long time. Science shows that humans who were essentially the same as us lived 40,000 years ago. Why do we not see signs of their civilizations? There is a simply answer to this question. They didn't have much food.

Let me explain. In the wild, less than 0.1% of the biomass is edible by humans. Much of the edible food is hard to obtain. Wheat, strawberries, potatoes, etc. simply did not exist in the forms we know them today. Thus, early humans spent much of their time searching for natural food. Frequently they exhausted the food in one region, and had to roam long distances in small tribes. Such existences are not conducive to the development of civilization.

Nevertheless, there are signs of early civilization that do survive. Early cave paintings in France show that these people were fully human in their ability to create. And early Polynesians sailed far beyond the visible horizon to reach Austrailia and the Pacific Islands. Europeans would not be able to duplicate this feat for another 30,000 years. Doubtless there were other works of art, techonology, and civilization of which we are not aware.

But the development of advanced civilation had to wait until food was more readily available. The process was slow. Wild grains, for instance, had small seeds which quickly fell to the ground when they were ripe. However, a mutation in some of these grains caused them to stay on the stalk. Early humans could have found these grains on the stalk, and gathered them to bring to their families. On the way, some of these grains could have been scattered on the ground, where they led to the growth of more grain. Thus humans, without knowing it, began to guide the process of grain evolution, by helping to scatter the grains they liked best. Eventually grains near human settlements became bigger, stayed on the stalk longer, and were better for human consumption. Eventually, some people may have planted some of these grains as a hobby in small fields. These fields would not have been enough to supply all of their food needs, but eventually, the grain fields would become a significant part of their food supply. As time went on, the grains became better, and technology to store and process these grains improved. Grain farming became big business. The abundance of food led to increased population, and this increased the demand for better farming methods. And so this necessity became the mother of invention, and people worked together to build advanced communities.

As food became more common, some people had time to specialize in other occupations, such as building things of wood, stone and metal, and governing the towns. The crowds of people in town with time to tinker, and to share their ideas with many others, facilitated the development of the other aspects of civilization.

But all of this was not possible 40,000 years ago. Civilization had to wait until plant evolution made this all possible.

It's a most fascinating study. You can ready more about it in the book, Guns, Germs and Steel, which describes how we got from bands of hunter-gatherers to people who could conquer the world with guns and steel.

Click on the book for more details.

In Six Days

2008-02-03T09:02:00.000-05:00

Mike Purington, a Christian science fiction writer wrote to me arguing for creation. His original email is at Opening email from Mike Purington. I respond at In Six Days?.

Same arguments, different book

2008-01-07T03:26:00.000-05:00

Ieshas worte another (huge) email appealing to us all to become Muslims. Her email can be found here. My response is here. A discussion of the fact that her arguments for Islam are basically the same as the arguments made for Christianity can be found here.

Near Death Experiences

2007-12-13T06:56:00.000-05:00

I received an email asking about near-death experiences:

I read a lot of your website and I think you have made so many great points about the bible.

I too have been going through my own search for truth and appreciate your views on many of the subjects you have written.

One of the things that I find a little puzzling is your confidence in this life being all we have. Although most all of your points seem valid to me I wonder how much you are willing to investiage the Near Death Experience (NDE), or Out of Body Experience (OBE).

The NDE and OBE documented by some very respected Doctors of Medicine would seem to point to something beyond this life as we know it. I am aware of the scientific explanations of certain chemical reactions at time of death producing this phenomona but we simply do not have an explanation for certain individuals who have claimed to hover over their bodies or travel to other places at the time of their legal death (no brain activity or heart function) -- some can repeat conversations from medical staff after their legal death!

The last issue I still struggle with is matter -- the creation of it, or the origins of it -- did it always exist? Is that possible? Was there never a nothing -- is that possible? How could something come from nothing?

I am just talking off the top of my head at this point but would love to engage someone on these subjects. It seems to me that while you may be right on historical matters there are just some issues we cannot know at this point. It doesn't seem profitable to pull away from the notion of a Creator or an afterlife with what we feel so sure of.

DG,

Your concern is that near death experiences indicate that there is something beyond this life. You recognize that there are arguments that explain the subjective feelings of these experiences. When brains are deprived of oxygen, they can respond in confusing ways, which can be interpreted by the patient as a near-death experience. But what about the reports that some people have made observations of events that occurred while they were in this near-death state? Does this prove they were outside the body and making observations of the world?

Before we look at the reported evidence, lets think about the problems with such claims. How exactly is it that these people are able to hear voices? Their brain is practically shut down, and is not responding to sounds heard by the ears. So how are these sounds being heard? Is the soul able to detect sounds without the benefit of ears? If so, why do people have ears? Why doesn't the soul simply tune into these sounds all of the time? And why can't deaf people hear? If souls can hear without using their ears, one would think that deaf people could hear without using their ears. And if the soul is somehow hearing these things and remembering them, exactly how is the soul transferring those memories to the brain. For science demonstrates that our memories are stored in the brain. So how do souls transfer this knowledge? Does the soul somehow manipulate the molecules in the brain? Souls are supposedly immaterial, and are supposedly undetectable by physical means. If souls are able to rearrange molecules in the brain, why aren't we able to detect these souls working?

If we instead decide that the soul is actually using the patient's physical ears and auditory portions of his brain, where exactly is the miracle here? This would prove only that the patient may have drifted into states of consciousness or near-consciousness during the experience. That would do nothing to prove they were outside of their body.

The same problem occurs when we think about the other senses that the soul would be using in a near-death experience. Exactly how are these people seeing without eyes, or smelling without noses?

So there are many problems with believing that the soul of these people is observing while the brain is technically at or near death. Nevertheless, if it really happened, we would need to recognize it.

I don't find that the reports of physical observations during that experience are that impressive. Much that is reported represents basic knowledge of emergency room procedures. Also, the patients have had time to interact with doctors and nurses after the experience. Further, many of these patients are familiar with what others have reported when near death, and they know what they are expected to say. Could their minds simply be assimilating the knowledge of these various sources? In the fog that their brain experiences in the recovery process, could the brain piece this all together into a story? Many of these reports do not occur until weeks after the experience. It is well known that memories change with time, and tend to change in the direction that the person wants to be true. Could it be that these "memories" simply grew with time as the patient tried to make sense of it all?

It would be far more impressive if the patients could report things that they could not have known from any other source. For instance, some have put laptop computer screens in the room, with the screen facing toward the ceiling and away from the people in the room. If the patient's soul is indeed hovering over the room, then he should see the display on the laptop and tell us what was on that display. I understand that such studies have not yet produced interesting results.

Until I see impressive responses that could not possibly have come from other sources, and as long as the concept of a disembodied soul conflicts with so much known science, I will remain skeptical of the claims of out of body experiences.

For more information see Near-death experience.

"Just because the evidence no longer exists doesn't mean the events didn't happen"

2007-12-13T06:02:00.000-05:00

I received an email from RS, agreeing that the things of faith cannot be proven, but suggesting that they just might be true anyway:

I've read your site to the point where I started to get a headache. You are one of those people who I find amazing. You have the ability to go deep on an issue and ask some really pertinent questions. I have seen others who have done the same on other topics; for example the Muslim woman with whom you briefly debated. She came across as so steeped in her worldview that she appeared blind to another way of looking at things. I've seen Atheists do the same. So what's my point? You may have come to erroneous conclusions based on your interpretation of the evidence that you found or failed to find. Or, maybe you're right. I agree with you that the Bible is an unreliable document generally. But, I suspect there are nuggets of truth, revelation, inspiration, and wisdom salted among the myths and legends. The problem is in sorting the wheat from the chaff, if you'll pardon my mixed metaphors. At one time I was tempted to conclude that Jesus didn't exist, or if he did he didn't resurrect from the dead based on the lack of empirical evidence. However, I've pulled back on that because I see that as a faulty conclusion. There wasn't enough evidence to convict OJ. But, that doesn't mean OJ didn't do it. Unfortunately not every scrap of everything written 2 thousand years ago is still around. So we are not in a position to examine and weigh every bit of evidence that could have been available. So, just because the evidence no longer exists doesn't mean the person or the events didn't happen.

I think trying to come to conclusions about God and the world in general from a strictly logical, intellectual approach is inadequate. I'm not sure all of what's available to know or experience can be determined that way. I've tried your approach and found it unsatisfying. I think its foolish to dismiss what those claiming to have spiritual insight and wisdom have to offer. Perhaps God is the very energy inside every cell in your body. Just because you don't understand how God relates to the universe doesn't mean God doesn't relate to the universe. And you may be approaching the arrogance so often seen in Christians, Muslims, and Atheists who seem to think they have it all figured out.

An old friend of mine said, "Opinions are like a**-holes: we've all got one." It seems to work for me as long as I keep perspective and realize that our conclusions are just opinions. I don't think any of us have any idea of what's really going on in this universe we occupy.

Having said that I appreciate your web site. People need to be challenged and disturbed a little. One of the most toxic combinations is ignorance and arrogance. There's too much of that in this world, especially the world of religion. You've done a lot to chip some of that away.

Thanks,

RS,

I'm glad you found my site to be challenging.

You are right that we do not have every bit of evidence from ancient times, and we cannot say with absolute certainty what happened. That is understood by all historians. We have only bits of writing and other artifacts to go by. Could the writer of those texts have been mistaken, or lying, or simply writing fiction? We don't know with absolute certainty. But there are methods of historical investigation that let us know with a high degree of certainty, even if we don't know with absolute certainty. Basically we look for agreement of different texts from independent sources. If the writers of several independent nations all record the same event, then we think it probably happened. But nobody knows for sure.

When dealing with the gospel accounts, we run into the problem that the stories are not verified outside a small group of people, who may well have been intending the accounts to be interpreted as fiction. Now if these events had actually happened; if many people had risen from the dead and walked around Jerusalem as Matthew records; if many had been healed of diseases; if thousands of Christians were proclaiming that a man was recently resurrected from the dead; and if a star had indeed let wise men to a particular spot, we would expect many historians to record that such events happened. For there were other historians who wrote in these times, and they seem to be unaware that the gospel story happened.

Now of course I cannot say with absolute certainly that these events did not happen, and I think I make that clear at my site. If I said anything that hints that I know these things with absolute certainty, then please show me what I wrote that hints at that. For I never intended to imply that I know these things with absolute certainty.

Do you use the same argument for other claims of ancient history? Do you believe that Asclepius was capable of doing many miracles? Do you believe that there was a statue of an athlete at Olympia with healing power? Will you go to that statue the next time you are sick? (See Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire) If you instead dismiss those claims of other religions, what makes your religion different? Why should one doubt the claims of many of the supposed healers of ancient Rome, except for one?

You say, I "may be approaching the arrogance so often seen in Christians, Muslims, and Atheists who seem to think they have it all figured out." On what do you base your accusation? If I have said anything that approaches arrogance, than please tell me exactly which words I have said that you think approach arrogance. My words have been on public record here on the Internet for years. If you think some of those words approach arrogance, please let me know which words you object to.

You say that there are nuggets of truth in the Bible, and we need to sort that out from the chaff. Yes, I agree. I know of nobody who claims that every sentence in the Bible is false. All admit that there is some truth there, as there is in almost any book.

You say, "I think trying to come to conclusions about God and the world in general from a strictly logical, intellectual approach is inadequate." But what is your alternate? You don't offer a method of finding out about God and the world, but you suggest that we can get this insight by listening to certain people. You write, "it's foolish to dismiss what those claiming to have spiritual insight and wisdom have to offer." Well, I agree with listening to what they have to say. But if they claim to have knowledge of God, how do they know they are right? Is there any reason to believe them? And what am I to do with the thousands of claims of insight? Surely you must know that there are many religions, cults, denominations, and sects. Surely you must know that these people have radically different views of God. Can all of them be right? No? Well, if some are wrong, how do you pick out the views that are right? Unless you can suggest a method of doing that, one is left with a system based on luck, in which one simply chooses to believe somebodies claims, and hopes he was lucky enough to pick the right guru.

You say, "Just because you don't understand how God relates to the universe doesn't mean God doesn't relate to the universe." Yes, of course, that is true. The fact that I do not understand something does not mean that it doesn't happen. I thought I made that clear at my site

You say, "I don't think any of us have any idea of what's really going on in this universe we occupy." I find that to be a rather strange claim. Surely you must realize that scientists know a great deal about the universe. Yes, we may not know things with absolute certainty, but we do have a good idea of how things work. So how can you suggest we have no idea what is going on?

So let me reiterate that I don't know the answers to religion with absolute certainty. I do, however, think that I have studied the issues sufficiently to reach strong but tentative conclusions for myself. I invite you to read my writings, for they might be helpful, but you are all welcome to decide for yourselves what is right on these issues.

When were the gospels written?

2007-10-16T06:48:00.000-04:00

One of the most common portals to my site is the page entitled, "When Were the Gospels Written?" I wrote that page because I could not find the topic covered sufficiently on the web. Since then, many people have found that page with Google searches. The page is sometimes referenced on various forums, either as an authority by those that agree, or an object of derision by those who don't. I am flattered by the attention given to that essay.

It's been a busy summer. In August RA wrote to me about this subject. I finally take the time to address him here.

What About Islam? (continued)

2007-09-16T18:26:00.000-04:00

It is amazing how religion can convince a person that he or she is right, and that those who disagree are wrong.

Is the Bible or the Quran a miraculous book in which the writer knew scientific facts far before they were known to others? Previously "Honey" argued at my blog that the Bible was such a miracle book, and that all such miraculous claims for the Quran were false. Now we find Iesha arguing that the Quran is a miracle book of science and the Bible is wrong. How is it that each can be so sure that she is right and the other is wrong? Each can see the obvious flaws in the other's arguments for her book. Yet each seems unable to see the faults in her own arguments, which are quite similar. Such is the grip of religion.

(Click here for more.)

Debating Islam

2007-09-10T21:01:00.000-04:00

Our discussion of Islam continues. Iesha had written to me and said, "write to me...all that you dislike about Islam...any 'mistake' in the quran." Iesha informed me that she would try to answer my objections. She wrote that when I get to know it, "You'll begin to love Islam." I wrote back, pointing out that the Quran sometimes encourages intolerance and evil acts. (I was not condemning all of Islam, nor was I condemning all Muslims. I was merely pointing out that I see that the Quran has faults, even as I point out that the Bible has faults.) Since the Quran approves of things that I consider unjust and intolerant, I do not love that book. Sure, there are good things in the book, but I find the intolerance unacceptable to my tastes.

After reading Iesha's later comments one might well ask if she ever really expected us to fall in love with the book, as opposed to following it out of fear of Allah. For fear seems to be the thrust of her latest posts, arguing that we need to be scared of Allah, lest he do horrible things to us.

Click here for more.

"Peace be with you"

2007-09-08T04:33:00.000-04:00

Iesha has posted a comment (here) concerning my "Branded on the Nose" entry. I address Iesha here.

----

Iesha,

I see you have bypassed most of my questions. No problem, I will simply ask again:. Once more:

Some believe the Bible but not the Quran. Some believe neither book. Do you think that they should have their skins burned off of them forever, continuously having fresh skin restored so it too can be burnt, further torturing those who came to a different conclusion from you?...If a person disbelieves the Quran for rational reasons, does that person deserve eternal torment?

I think it is evil to torture people for not believing something. What do you think? Please answer.

You write:

As-Salam u Alaikum

The words that I have cited above, most of you might not pronounce them correctly, these words are the ones which begin any conversation in the day to day life of a muslim be it formal or informal, be it the meeting with a friend or a business transaction.And what do these words mean?

Well according to how Islam has been branded, the ideal greeting should have been "death to the infidels" and things like that but these words actually mean:"Peace b upon u" And it is quite well known that even during the Prophet's time the Muslims used to openly greet even Non muslims with the same greeting.

Thats not all, after each of the five prayers a Muslim turns his face to the wright and left and says "Peace be upon u" meaning to send peace all around. Further among the many suplications one is "O lord!u r the peace and frm u is the peace, guide me to peace and make me enter the doors of peace" Further whenever a Muslim makes mention of nay of the Prophets of Islam, be it Moses or Jesus or any of the Biblical Prophets it is OBLIGATORY to say Peace b upon Him.

Now you tell me is this the way that an intolerant and fanatic religion tells its folllowers to behave in their daily life? How many times do u even use the word PEACE in your daily life?

Excuse me, but I have never said that Islam is an intolerant and fanatic religion. Those are your words, not mine. Please do not pretend I am saying something that I am not saying. That will get us nowhere. I have already explained to you that I have no objection to you finding comfort in Islam. You can certainly find good in Islam, and you are welcome to enjoy its culture. That is not the issue.

The problem is that you are trying to convince me that the Quran is infallible. It is this claim that I disagree with. I can see that the Quran is filled with mistakes, as I have explained to you in my previous post.

You mention that you greet people with "Peace be upon you." That is a good way to greet people. Your culture has good sayings. My culture has good sayings. This is not the issue. The issue is whether or not a certain book is perfect. Could I ask you to please stick with the issue?

And no Iwill not agree agree with u that there are mistakes in the Quran, NOT UNTILL MY LAST BREATH! Because Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him has said; "A true Muslim is He who holds firmly to his faith even if he is threatened, even if he is tied between two walls and his body is sawed into two, even if all his flesh is scrapped off bit by bit, still he should remain true 2 islam" This is my unshakable faith1 And u cant be so bad to me can u?

How do you know you will not change your mind before your last breath? What if you find new evidence before your last breath? Will you change your mind if you find new evidence that clearly shows you are wrong? A person that will not change his mind even if he is presented with clear evidence is a closed-minded person. Are you a closed-minded person?

If you try to argue that you know there cannot possibly be evidence against your beliefs, then I will ask you how you know that. Surely you do not know everything, do you? Well, if you do not know everything, how could you be absolutely certain that within the vast body of knowledge in the universe, there is not some evidence that proves you are mistaken about religion?

And so if we cannot be absolutely sure we know everything pertinent to the question, and if you do not claim to be closed-minded, then you must admit that you might someday find new evidence that will change your mind about the Quran. So is your statement above false? Is it possible that some day you may change your mind?

And no, of course I would not threaten someone and tie them between two walls and scrape the flesh off them so that they would believe what I believe. How can you possibly ask if I would be so bad? I wouldn't think of doing that. As I explained before, I believe in using the pen, not the sword, to spread my ideas.

Now, to begin with the thing i find wrong with merle's interpretation is that where ever there is a sentence like "WE shall punish them.... "WE shall brand them on their noses...WE shall burn them...", MERLE resorts to asking me and muslims in general "Why do U want 2 burn me? or Why do U want burning water 2 b poured over me" And he says "Should I be scared of u?"

WHEN DID I SAY THAT? THE QURAN SAYS THAT NOT ME WELL WELL... Just to remind our very intelligent friend, here the WE refers to GOD not Muslims, the punishment that is being refered to is the one which will be given in the hereafter, and yes it does expect u to be fearful but not of me or anyother Muslim, it expects u to fear Allah, who is as Jesus says "MY LORD AND UR LORD".

Excuse me, but did you notice that I never asked the three questions that you listed here (although the last question is close to something I asked). Why do you make up questions and pretend I asked them? Why not answer the questions that I actually asked instead of making up questions and pretending that I asked them? Wouldn't it be more meaningful if you actually answer the questions I ask, rather than make up questions and pretend I was asking those?

You say that it is God, not Muslims, that are doing the acts here. But the verses I quoted often referred to people doing the acts, not just God. For istance, Quran 9:123 says "O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)." I quoted that verse to you before. It clearly refers to people doing those acts. Do you agree with me that this verses recommends that people do evil acts? Or do you think it is right to harshly fight unbelievers?

If someone harshly fights others, what good is it to say "Peace be upon you" while harshly fighting the person being greeted? Would not that be decptive?

And how can you interpret the word "we" in the Quran to mean God? The word "we" appears to refer to Muhammed and his followers. Look at the first chapter of the Quran:

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, The Beneficent, the Merciful. Master of the Day of Judgment, Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help. Show us the straight path,

Who does "we" refer to in this passage? Who is talking here? Clearly it is a man talking about Allah. The word "we" refers to people who worship Allah, who ask Allah for help, and who need to be shown a straight path. Likewise, in the verses I quoted previoulsy, "we" seems to refer to people. If it refers to God, how do you know that? Doesn't a book need to clearly define what it means before it uses a pronoun? If the word "we" does not mean the obvious--Muhammed and
his followers--where does the Quran state that "we" doesn't mean that? How can one arbritraly assign a meaning to the word "we", when there is nothing within the context of that book that makes that meaning obvious?

But even if "we" refers to God, how do you explain the fact that the "we" are doing things that most of us regard as evil, such as continuously torturing people because they don't believe what "we" think they should believe?

You can see for ur self in various places the Quran has harsh things to say to THOSE WHO BURRY GOLD AND SILVER, THOSE WHO STEAL THE ORPHANS PROPERTY,THOSE WHO FROWN AT THE GIRL CHILDA BIRTH, THOSE WHO LIE etc.

Many good books teach good morals. There are verses in the Quran that teach good morals. Great! But what about the verses that praise things that many people consider to be evil?

The basic declaration of Faith or EMAN in Islam is :"I believe in Allah and his books and his Prophets and his angels and in the day of judgement and in Destiny"

I find no evidence that the Quran is written by God, therefore I don't believe it. Do you think I deserve to be tortured for all eternity, because I carefully examined the data, and have reached a different conclusion from you?

Response to a Muslim: Will we be branded on the nose?

2007-07-22T10:30:00.000-04:00

I get many emails suggesting I need faith, but people cannot seem to agree on which faith would be best for me. Here is another email from a Muslim, suggesting that what I really need is Islam. IJ writes:

ASalam u alaikum, may peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon u

Brother Merle,

Hope ur in good health. after a long long time im writing 2 u. Where have u reached in ur search 4 the truth? U might have denounced one faith, but what are u going 2 replace that space with? atheism? agnostism? hinduism? budhism? what....? WHY NOT ISLAM?

Yes i know u'll be thinking im nuts, but how much do u know abt Islam? U might have proved that the bible is not the word of God and that Christianity is a hoax, but can u dissprove Islam? WELL, NOBODY CAN! COZ ITS THE TRUTH, ITS FRM GOD!

Surely u could try out wether im just fooling around or wether its a big joke. All i want 2 say is that dont involve any one else in this and lets have a fair debate.

Herez what u do:

write to me in pts all that u dislike abt Islam , all that u find really stupid, any "mistake" in the quran what ever you can find to deny the fact that islam is the truth.

THEN,

I'll try my best 2 give u the best answers ( if Allah wills), if u get all the answers , the choice is up 2 u and if i cant give u the answers, then ive failed.

Just remember one thing, it was just by accident i discovered ur site, and I dont know what motivated me to interact with u and to be really sincere im trying ro convince u abt Islam only beacuse i really feel concerned 4 every person who hasent got 2 know a great deal abt Islam, coz when u know abt it, YOU'LL BEGIN 2 LUV ISLAM!

Who knows maybe Allah wants 2 guide u , for its only He who can guide. As He says in the Quran:

"The one whom Allah guides, no one can misguide

and the one whomw He misguides no one can guide!"

My favourite verse frm the Quran is:

"When truth is heard out falsehood, falsehood perishes, for falsehood by its nature is bound 2 perish!"

TRY 2 READ THE BEAUTIFUL ESSAY:"THE QURAN IS AMAZING-By Garry Miller"

Its available at http://www.islam101.com/

May Allah Guide us all close u the truth and spread the peace of Islam.

I respond below:

--------------------------------------

IJ;

I can see that you find much comfort in the culture of Islam. Many others find comfort in other cultures. If you were simply saying that you find good in your culture, but that, like all cultures, Islam has a mixture of evil and non-truth mixed with the good, I would have no objection. But your claim goes much deeper. You imply that there is no mistake in Islam. In that I think you are mistaken. There are mistakes in Islam and in the Quran, as there are mistakes throughout all of human enterprise. How can one possibly deny that?

You ask what I find wrong with Islam. Well, for one thing, I find a disturbing amount of intolerance in the Quran. Perhaps you can explain to me why a book from God would appear to be so intolerant. Here are a few example verses:

4:56 Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty,

Okay, so if I don't believe what you have to say, I will be exposed to the fire? And as often as my skin is consumed it will be replaced with fresh skin, so I can suffer more? And what is the crime for which this punishment is meted out? Do you recommend all of this torture of those who examine your religion, and come to a different conclusion from you?

IJ, people look at religion and come to different conclusions. Some believe the Bible but not the Quran. Some believe neither book. And do you think that they should have their skins burned off of them forever, continuously having fresh skin restored so it too can be burnt, further torturing those who came to a different conclusion from you?

Why not simply approach religion from a rational point of view? Perhaps others have come to a different conclusion from you for reasons that to them seem rational. If a person disbelieves the Quran for rational reasons, does that person deserve eternal torment?

4:74 Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.

And so do you encourage people to fight in the way of Allah, even if they have to fight to the death?

When I find people who differ with me, I prefer to use the pen--or the keyboard--rather than the sword. Do you approve of the sword for solving such disputes?

4:150 Lo! those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers, and seek to make distinction between Allah and His messengers, and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and seek to choose a way in between; 4:151 Such are disbelievers in truth; and for disbelievers We prepare a shameful doom.

Ah, so do you agree with preparing a shameful doom for those who disbelieve? The hijackers on 9/11 prepared a shameful doom for many who did not believe. Do you think they did the right thing? Or do you think it is wrong to prepare a shameful doom for disbelievers in Islam?

7:179 We urged unto hell many of the jinn and humankind, having hearts wherewith they understand not, and having eyes wherewith they see not, and having ears wherewith they hear not. These are as the cattle - nay, but they are worse! These are the neglectful.

Ah, so I, and the many Christians, atheists, and others who disbelieve your book are cattle, and even worse then cattle? Why does your book resort to name-calling? And why does your book so viciously destroy the self-esteem of others?

9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

So do you think it is good to find those who worship a different God, and to besiege them and take them captive? Do you approve of slaying me or making me a slave or yours if I don't believe your book? Do you approve of wars of conquest in the name of Allah?

Or do you admit that this is one of the places where the Quran is mistaken?

9:73 O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.

And you believe in being harsh with LorMar, noogatiger, Honey, and others who have posted here and don't believe your book?

Come on, why can't we all be friends?

9:123 O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

And do you follow this verse? Can we expect that you will fight against us if we don't believe your book? If so, should we be scared of you?

Or do you see that this verse is mistaken, and therefore do not do what it says?

18:29 Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!

Have you no pity on the suffering of others? If they are suffering in fire, and they beg for showers, why give them showers of molten lead?

22:19 These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads, 22:20 Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; 22:21 And for them are hooked rods of iron. 22:22 Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.

Is that what you will say to me if I don't believe your book? Will you tell me to taste the doom of burning? Will you agree with those who pour boiling fluid on my head, and melt my skin?

Tell me please, do you think I would be a better person if I believed and followed your book, and did what such verses recommend?

25:36 Then We said: Go together unto the folk who have denied Our revelations. Then We destroyed them, a complete destruction.

So do you encourage those who destroy the disbelievers with a complete destruction?

Can you see how some might think such verses promote terrorism?

34:5 But those who strive against Our revelations, challenging (Us), theirs will be a painful doom of wrath.

But if nobody is ever able to challenge the revelations, how do you know the revelations are true?

I am skeptical of anybody who refuses to let their claim be challenged, and threatens wrath on those who wish to challenge the claims. I prefer free discussion.

If a witness refuses cross-examination on the witness stand, doesn't that cast doubt on his testimony? If your book refuses cross-examination, can you see how some of us see this as reason to be even more skeptical of its claims?

68:15 That, when Our revelations are recited to him, he saith: mere fables of the men of old. 68:16 We shall brand him on the nose.

And if the people who post here, such as Honey or Noogatiger, do not agree with your book, will you brand them on the nose? Should they be scared of you?

2:8 And of mankind are some who say: We believe in Allah and the Last Day, when they believe not. 2:9 They think to beguile Allah and those who believe, and they beguile none save themselves; but they perceive not.

Okay, so we cannot escape this fire and branding on our noses by simply claiming to believe? We must truly believe, or we will be branded on the nose?

I am sorry, but if the facts do not support an assertion, then I cannot believe it. I can pretend to believe it, but I cannot believe something when I think it is not true. If I cannot escape doom by pretending to believe, then your book offers no hope.

------------------------
Okay, that is just the tip of the iceberg. I could cite many similar verses. Let's start with those. These verse seem wrong to me. If you do not think they are wrong, please explain.

I think you will agree with me that there are indeed some mistakes in the Quran.

Greed, fear, hell, and the search for happiness

2007-06-18T02:48:00.000-04:00

Let me share another email with you:

Putting aside for a moment your own sad future -- and please don't bother telling me that you don't believe you're going to Hell, because it will not change my mind nor your future -- what is the point in making the "questioning" site? Please, do not answer this with bunch of "freeing the mind from the bonds of religion" rants. Just mull this over.

I stumbled upon your site by searching on the Internet for "Jesus happiness" in hopes of finding ways to turn from sinful, materialistic greed and look to the Lord for guidance. Lo and behold, your site turned up instead.

Your site basically is trying to get us to "question" Christian beliefs, correct? *My* question is...why? If you are an ex-Christian, fine. I'm very sorry to hear your story. But why do you feel the need to try to undermine others' beliefs? Suppose you are wrong -- you have effectively led all those who read your essays against Christianity and believed them into Hell for the rest of eternity, and away from Jesus for the rest of their life. Suppose you are right -- you have effectively relieved them of going to Church once a week and given them "wiggle room" on sin. Sin, whether or not you believe it is God's law, is not only spiritually but also morally wrong.

Your reasoning for putting up the website, unless you have no concern for anyone but yourself, is terribly flawed. By even creating this site, you assume that you are completely right on the existence of God and nature of Jesus. Now, you may have heard this argument before, but can you name the number of dust mites in a square yard of floor in Beijing off the top of your head? It's relatively safe to assume you cannot. Therefore, you do not know everything. Actually, humans generally do not know a tenth of a percent about everything. You must know everything to say with absolute certainty that any given thing does not exist. For instance, for me to say that there is no iron in the United States whatsoever, I would need to thoroughly know every square millimeter of the United States, every person's home, even underground. However, to prove the existence of iron in the US, I would need to see but one fleck of iron within US boundaries to say with absolute certainty that iron existed in the USA.

Even if you knew an incredible one percent about everything, is it possible that in the 99% of everything you did NOT know, there is sufficient evidence to prove that God exists?

Please think over your reasons for putting up this website. I'll be praying for you.

-Ms. V.

She asks me for my reasons for putting up the website, and then asks me please to not answer her question by speaking of freeing the mind. If she begs me not to answer, why does she ask?

I have already made it clear on my opening page why I put up the site. I want people to understand why I have changed my mind about religion. Many have found this helpful to them, and I am glad to help other people.

She explains to me that I do not know everything, and that I do not know, for instance, the number of dust mites on each square yard in Beijing. Yes, of course, that is true. I do not know everything. I readily admit that. That is the basis of agnosticism. We don't know everything, and even the things that we do "know", we know only because our senses have determined it. But could our senses be fooling us? Could there be things that our senses have not yet been made aware of? Yes, of course. And since we cannot know everything, we can not know things with absolute certainty. Thus we cannot be dogmatic when we make claims.

Seeing that she agrees with me that we don't know everything, then may I ask her why she makes dogmatic statements about hell? Why does she tell me my views of hell won't change her mind, and that she is right about my future? Surely she does not know everything, does she? To use her illustration, she does not know how many dust mites are in every square yard in Beijing, does she? Okay, if she does not know everything, why does she insist that she is right about hell and that those who disagree with her are wrong? And why does she ask those who disagree with her not to present their arguments? If she will not hear my argument, how can she be sure that her argument is right and mine is wrong?

She tells me please not bother answering with my beliefs. She asks me only to mull over the concept of hell. Perhaps she should read my story at my site. I grew up with the fear of hell, a crippling fear that destroyed much of my happiness as a child. I mulled over the fear of hell many times. So by asking me to mull over hell once more, she is asking me to take a step backwards, to the fear that once dominated my life. Why?

She says that to prove with absolute certainty that something doesn't exist one would need to know everything. That is true. And so for her to prove with absolute certainty that Allah will not send her to hell for believing in Jesus, she would need to know everything. To prove with absolute certainty that the Greek gods are not reigning down terror from on high, she would need to know everything. Does she lie awake at night, worrying about the wrath of Allah or Zeus? I don't think so. Since she cannot prove with absolute certainty that there is no space alien hidden behind her at this moment, is she living in panic that she will be hit by its laser gun? I don't think so. Why not? Although she cannot prove with absolute certainty that the fear of Zeus or a space alien is groundless, the chances that such things are true are so remote, she doesn't worry about them. Could the same reasoning be applied to the fear of hell?

We cannot spend our lives in fear of all the things that might possibly be true. If she wants to propose that something might be true, and wants to give me a reason for believing it is true, I am willing to listen. But when she demands that I fear things without reason, she seems to be asking me to take a step backwards.

Is it possible that within the 99% of knowledge that I don't know, there exists a proof of gremlins, demons, gods, aliens, or monsters? Uh, yeah, perhaps it is possible. But is it plausible?

Okay, now tell me, Ms. V.: Do you have any proof of your claim? If not, why explain that there might be a proof somewhere?

Ms. V. reiterates a version of Pascal's Wager, which I have addressed many times. I have been asked often, "What if I am wrong?" Okay, what if there really is a being who will damn all people who are wrong in their beliefs? But somehow many people don't apply the same logic to Allah. What if Allah exists, and will damn all people who believe in Jesus? Will you embrace Islam, just in case? If you do not ask me to embrace all possible religions, just in case they might be right, why do you ask me to embrace one, just in case?

Ms. V. suggests that I write to give people wiggle room to do moral wrong. That is completely wrong. I certainly have not written for that purpose. Many of us have found that setting our minds free builds our moral strength. We are now free to love others, not out of the fear of hell, but by seeing the need for cooperative relationships and by feeling the feelings that our actions cause in others.

Ms. V. says she found my site by searching on the internet for "Jesus happiness," searching with "hopes of finding ways to turn from sinful, materialistic greed." Human greed is understandable. We evolved in circumstances where food, clothing, shelter, tools, and other material things were in short supply. To the extent that these things provide necesities for survival, they are essential to happiness. So we have a natural urge to obtain such things. But the human mind is not good at shutting down those urges. Even after we have had our basic needs met, the unhappy person can find herself continuously greedy for more, with the mistaken hope that more stuff will bring more happiness. The solution to greed appears to be that of overcoming the natural urges by use of reason. We have many natural urges, but reason can show our urges where they must back off.

I could explain to her that I have found true happiness by setting my mind free to think, by exploring the world around me, and by setting out in cooperation with others to build successful lives. But unfortunately, she asks me not to "rant" about such freedom, but rather to retreat to mulling over the fear of hell.

It appears from her email that Ms. V. is not happy. Else why would she be searching on the Internet for "happiness" and looking for relief from materialistic greed? I wish I could help. But as long as she begs me not to present my views about happiness, I cannot do much to help her.

But perhaps others will want to hear what I say. I have found happiness in setting my mind free, in exploring beyond the religion I inherited. Perhaps others will also find this satisfying, and will find it far better than a life of materialistic greed. If this does not help you, then please feel free to surf on. But if it helps, I am glad I was able to help.

Replacing mainstream science with what????

2007-06-16T06:01:00.000-04:00

Should I continue to deal with the comments of the women known as "Honey" here at this blog? She continuous to argue against the conclusions of mainstream science, but what does she put in its place? We find another comment of hers at The Origin of Life. I respond to her here.

All the scientific evidence we can gather on the matter demonstrates that life does not occur spontaneously.

As I explained to her before (here) her hero, Louis Pasteur, and others have demonstrated that life does not occur spontaneously under the known present conditions. But we notice that she conveniently ignores that detail. Nowhere has science ever tested, or been able to test, the concept of life evolving from primitive chemicals on the early earth over millions of years. As I have explained to her before, such a test would be impossible, for it would require millions of years--and we don't have time to wait that long--and it would require exact knowledge of conditions of early life.

So exactly which experiment is "Honey" referring to that, after millions of years of conditions in the reducing atmosphere similiar to conditions on the early earth, life was found not to occur? Would she please explain to me when and where that experiment occurred? What's that you say? Ah, such an experiment was never done, for it would require millions of years! Aha! The experiment was never done! Now if the experiment was never done, how can she possibly infer that experiments say the original emergence of life by this process was impossible? Don't we need to do the experiment at least once before we make the claim that experiments verify our conclusion?

As I explained to her before (and she ignores) her hero, Pasteur, said, "I looked for spontaneous generation without finding it, but I do not believe it to be impossible." Pasteur knew that his not finding the spontaneous emergence of microbes under the conditions he tested in no way proved it to be impossible in all conditions. And Pasteur was not even attempting to test the conditions of early earth. That was not his purpose. He had other concerns in mind, that is, how to form and control the microbes that cause fermentation, thus enhancing the production of beer. And yet somehow, Honey chooses to extrapolate from the fact that Pasteur could not find the spontaneous emerging of life under the conditions he was testing to the false conclusion that life could not occur spontaneously under any possible condition.Is such an extrapolation justified?

And what a coincidence...the Bible says that GOD gave life to everything.

The question before us is not whether God was involved in the process--a question I do not normally address--but what that process was. Science is very clear on the process that formed modern life. After the first microbes appeared, these microbes evolved into the range of creatures we see today. There is overwhelming evidence for that.

Now if "Honey" can agree with me that evolution is the process by which modern species arose, we could move on to discuss whether God was behind it all. But if she denies evolution, then she finds herself in opposition to a vast amount of solid science. And if she denies evolution, what does she put in its place?

The Biblical evidence is that God created the first of, and that reproduction followed after it's kind.

And the scientific evidence is that "kinds" have been varying with time. For instance, there is a well established series of horse fossils that shows that modern horses and zebras evolved from a small fox-sized creature. Does Honey deny this? Okay, then exactly how did the first Zebra come into existance? If Honey knows better than mainstream science, would she please present us with an alternative? How exactly did the first Zebra come into existence?

"Special creation"? "Out of nothing"? I didn't use these phrases at all, and I make no such claim.

Ah, so now we run into the traditional denial and obfuscation. "Special creation" is the term used for the belief that God specifically made each "kind" distinct, without using the process of evolution. But Honey doesn't like the term "special creation"? Fine, she may use whatever term she wants. But what term does she use? If she is going to deny evolution, doesn't she need to present us with an alternative? How exactly did the first zebra come into existence, if not by evolution, and not by "special creation"?

Honey is replacing mainstream science with what?

God created man out of the dust of the Earth, and the Breath of God, so there is every reason to believe the other forms of life were created in similar manner.

Mainstream science teaches that out of the elements of the earth and the atmosphere, over time, life emerged. The question is not whether life originated from the existing elements--on which we both seem to agree--but how this happened.

How did the first zebra come into existence? I await anxiously to hear Honey's answer.

"Why does the Bible need so much clarification?"

2007-06-08T19:34:00.000-04:00

Here is another email from another user that is finding the joy of exploring.

My husband has recommended your site to me as of late. I have just began reading on your website and found the section entitled "Is the Bible Perfect" particularly interesting.

I have been a Christian for about 12 years now and before that grew up in a house with an awareness of God. I have recently been discovering that I have some nagging questions in the back of my mind about the Bible and about God and his character/actions. Until recently, the past 2 years or so, I would define myself as one who tried to think as little as possible...it seemed to work for me. If you have no opinion you can never be wrong, right. Well, that's how I learned to survive through my teen years anyway. If I found a reasonable explantion for something I went with it and "preached/believed it as truth."

I've come to a point in my life where I am no longer satisfied with what I've been taught simply because it's what I've been taught. I really want to know what I believe and why I believe it. I've come to the realization that the "convictions" I have formed as a Christian were mainly formed because it was "the right decision" or the ones that sounded good. But I really didn't put a lot of thought into forming them. I realized that I have not done much investigating at all of the Bible and I have been calling myself a good Christian for so many years. I don't know how I've come to believe half of the things that I do. I'm in no way saying that everything I've come to believe is wrong...but I do think that not being willing to investigate if what you believe, i.e. investigating if it's coming from a credible source is wrong.

It's really creating some problems for me right now. At the church I currently attend I am pretty well known...mainly because my parents are well known in the church. My friends have always looked up to me as "spiritual" and a good disciple of Jesus. Recently I've been "trying to test the waters" with a couple of friends and asking them why they believe in God. You may be surprised, or maybe not, but many people don't react well to this question. Most of the responses I get are, "Why DON'T you believe in God?" Now what kind of logic is that? And another reason they give me is that they "feel its the truth, and that their life is better now than before they became a Christian." That presents two problems for me. The Bible that they hold so dear tells them that the heart is deceitful above all things...so should their feelings prove the validity of the Bible and God? And, secondly isn't it possible to live a good life without being a Christian? When one becomes a Christian they do make choices to stop doing things that harm themselves and others...and the lack of doing things does make the situation better. But I believe someone who is not a Christian can make these same "healthy" decisions in their life and the outcomes would be the same.

My husband and I are going through some tough times right now and I'm at risk of losing some friends because of the questions I have about God. I'm facing some really tough times ahead...questioning might leave me alone...but I have to do it. Ignorance is no longer bliss for me...some days I really wish it was still, but it's not.

Anyway, this brings me to the point of my letter...sorry, it took me so long to get here. I'm beginning to study out what I believe and why. I've been trying to take a closer look at the bible and all religions. I so many questions about why the bible seems to contradict itself, why God seems to have changed so drastically from the Old Testament to the New and I have a hard time with the claim that only Christians have it right and are going to heaven.

So, needless to say your section "Is the Bible Perfect" jumped out to me and I wanted to comment on a particular paragraph. It is the paragraph about 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25. I found the discrepancy interesting. I looked the scriptures up in my bible, the NIV, and saw that 1 Kings 4:26 said "four thousand stalls for chariot horses, and twelve thousand horses...", not the "fourty thousand" you quoted. I thought that was odd so I went back to your site and clicked on the link for the scripture you provided. The link brought me to the New American Standard Bible translation. I then proceded to look up the scripture in every translation I could and noticed that The KJV and many others all said fourty, but the NIV said four as did the New International version. Wow!

I have to admit reading this paragraph on your site and the chart toward the bottom of the page have addressed some of the questions I've been having lately. I have to admit I've been one who never really questioned the Bible much or it's consistancy. I have just regurgitated the same rationalizations passed down to me on to others. The bible says that it was inspired by God and its still living and active and that nothing should be added or taken away...what about changed? I am just at the beginning of my journey to find out what the hell I believe...I feel like I don't know anything at times. But, I'm am determined to question and I believe I will have stronger convictions than ever about what I believe...and it may not be what I've been taught for so long...and that's scary to say.

I guess what I'm trying to say/ask is why does the Bible need so much clarification? Why do so many things need to be interpreted or justified? Just because it does doesn't prove to me that the Bible isn't valid...I guess I'm saying is that it just stinks. It would be nice to have a book that just spells everything out clearly. And if one translation says four and another says fourty...you are right in asking, "Who has the right version?" I'm now asking myself. I've got a lot of studying to do.

Yes, indeed, why does the Bible need so much clarification? Why must there be an army of apologists, continuously explaining away the problems? Why should a book written by God have so many problems?

Since one version of the Bible says "four" where another says "forty", which is correct? If one version had said the horses were strong but another said they were mighty, that would just be a difference in translation. But here we have differences in content. Different manuscripts say different things. And nobody can be sure which is correct, or if both are wrong. And if we cannot be sure which is right, how can we be sure any is a reliable copy of words written by God?

"Post it on you site or be branded as a coward and a fake"

2007-06-06T19:48:00.000-04:00

Recently I received another email from TR, whom I had previously answered here on this blog. I wrote back reminding him that I have addressed most of his comments elsewhere on my site, and asking him to read what I have already written. Instead, he responded by saying, "Post it on you [sic] site or be branded as a coward and a fake." Aw shucks! Does TR really think that I am trying to keep people from reading what he writes? I think most of my readers can see through his arguments. For the record, here is his argument:

I read your response on the web page as Another Challenge to my web site. Your answer to can scientists bring back a man from the dead after four days was no answer. You simply attacked my statement on your computer and claimed I cut off the branch I was sitting on by attacking Science. How about answering the Question instead of attacking my statement. In the statement I made about with some thought many Scientific statements can be explained away, you said explain away Newtons Principia, which was a philosophy which has been obsolete for more years then we have been alive and does not fit into traditional metaphysics. Even Einsteins theory of relativity may well be defective according to New Sciences. Even the Big Bang that I mentioned could well be flawed.Thats why Science still cannot be considered more reliable than the Bible. As far as your statement that we (who is we, is that you) have found the spot in the human genome where two of the apes genes were joined were joined together to make the human gene is simply not true. There are some resemblences in all dna to all other creatures , as , but none linking in a standard definable relatable form to human. We are totally in a class of our own.Have you ever seen the working parts of the human ear, and if so can you actually believe this was all an accident of evolution. Even the top Scientists are saying that they believe there must have been intelligent design in this. Yes all things will evolve and change but this does not mean that the creation did not happen. If the theory of evolution were all true, then the fossil records would reveal literally billions of transitional forms. The fact that there have been so many fraudulent or mistaken claims on this front demonstrates how desperate the evolutionists are to produce even one! But nothing proves the impossibility for transitional forms more than the supposed evolution of Homo sapiens from their common ancestor with apes. When I said many scientists cannot perform some simple tasks but can sell books with baffling explanations to get noteriety I could well have been explaining your website. Science world on December 2000 claimed that Einstein could not speak until the age of three, and got bad grades in history and languages. Whether true on not its well known that many more books and theorys that have been lies were printed than were true and thats even more true this year. Its also documented that many gifted scientists are so preoccupied with their Science that the cannot see much of anything else. Some have reached a complete breakdown in the ability to cope. Some of the most intelligent were also dangerous and are in our prisons. Your statements about fossils between humans and apes are totally wrong. In fact the absence of any fossils to this effect is the biggest block to evolution. And your response about Dinosaurs into birds. Dinosaurs were upon the earth in 1400 B.C. At least you should read Job ch 40 , 15-24 .The description of the behomith could be nothing less than a dinosaur. Read ch 41 for the leviathin. Leave it up to scientist to date them millions of years ago. Samples of 200 year old volcanic eruptions sent to various labs were dated from 25000 to millions of years of age. Trust Scientists, hell I guess we should trust Lawyers and Doctors too. I wouldnt put my life on the line for either one without deeply scrutinizing. Trust me that I know what Im talking about in Doctors, be sure to carefully watch your treatments especially now. The bible does not actually encourage the eating of beef more than fish and veggies as you said, and why do you believe these Scientists that claim beef is unhealthy anyway. Beef raised naturally without the scientists additives , hormones, and growth enhancing drugs is quite healthy if prepared properly and eaten in small portions. Remember what the Bible says about gluttony. Well guess what the Bible scores again. Eat a variety of food is ok but not large amounts. We can eat almost anything that moves that God created , unless Science has fooled with it in a negative way. The Jewish were living in less than backward conditions in a hostile world much different than you and me. The savage way of life and freedom from slavery was likely ruled as needed. You probably believe rules should be the same then as now. Prison has different rules, different societys have different rules. The Isrealites worshipped idols, sacrificed animals, even killed and stoned their own. It took time and finally Jesus to change things. I agree that we should examine and question all and everything including the Bible and Christianity. But I cannot agree with your attempts to use statements that are not true and disguise them in smoke to influence believers. Its just too important a subject that can cause eternal hurt to some. This to me is as damnable as someone who sells drugs, Do you actually believe creating more Atheists will improve life for anyone. Its the same as a drug dealer who thinks he can just sell a few without harming anyone. As far as my statement that most books that tell you how to do things being total garbage note that I said most.. I read , I scan the internet, and examine the content for value and toss out the rest which is usually 90 percent wrong to me. I think your problem is that you tend to use everything that you can use without filtering out the truth because it doesnt suit your purpose. There is gray area to everything and a few things may be undeniable in any situation.. If Einstein had not taught himself calculus and developed special relativity as his own, he would likely have never developed his theorys. He accomplished more by not using other theorys.

TR says, "There are some resemblences in all dna to all other creatures...but none linking in a standard definable relatable form to human."

Huh? Where has TR been? It has been known for a long time that chimpanzee and human DNA share much of the same code. TR could have found this out for himself with a simple google search for "Chimpanzees human dna percent" So with broad scientific understanding that chimp and human DNA have much in common, where does TR get his data that there is no definable match? Should we simply ignore all of the scientists who study this issue? Is TR going to suggest that he understands DNA better than thousands of scientists?

That is just one example of a claim by TR that most scientists would consider to be nonsense.

TR claims that the discovery of the spot where two ape chromosomes are joined in the human genome is false. He can look at the link On Apes and Humans for details of this discovery of the spot where the two chromosomes joined. Now what is TR's evidence that the data presented there is false?

TR claims, "Its well known that many more books and theorys that have been lies were printed than were true." No, that is not well known. Who besides TR makes that claim? And if TR is the only one making that claim, how can he say it is well known?

And if most things TR reads are false, how can he believe anything he reads? If most people are speaking falsely to him, how can TR detect who is telling the truth in the midst of all that mistruth? I anxiously wait to hear his answer.

If we are all to assume that most of what we read is false, should we assume that TR is misspeaking to us also? If not, why not? If we are to assume most of what we read is false, should we not also assume that most of what we read from TR is false? If not, what makes TR's claims so special that we should believe him, but not other people?

TR seems to be unaware that the fossil record is filled with transitional fossils, including transitionals between apes and humans. I link to some files documenting those transitionals at my site. I invite TR to read about those transitionals before he claims again that they do not exist.

I ask TR to document his claim that 200 year old rocks date to millions of years. I am quite certain this is a false claim. If he expects us to believe it, I ask him to tell us how he knows it is true.

Oh, and by the way, I did answer TR's question about whether science can bring back a man from the dead after four days. I said, "Nope". That is my answer. Now can TR please kindly tell us what part of "Nope" he cannot understand?

I won't get into the rest of his email, which is basically a rant against scientists and other professionals. I think my readers can see for themselves the emptiness of TR's claims.

The Origin of Life

2007-06-03T10:26:00.000-04:00

"Honey" has left a comment (here) discussing Louis Pasteur (again) and the origin of life. I address her comments here, expanding on the issue of the origin of life:

-------------------

"Honey",

You wrote :

[Pasteur was] Free from what?

PLEASE READ THIS
PAGE:
http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/ci/1992/Pasteur.html

…and then please let us know exactly what it was that Pasteur was free from after all those years of scientific observation.

Louis Pasteur was free to discover the world for what it is.

I am not sure why you asked me to read that link, because it describes Pasteur's drive to discover the truth, wherever it might lead. Yes, the link says Pasteur was a theist, and I have already admitted this. Pasteur was a practicing Catholic. But in his science, it appears he was able to leave the dogmas behind, and to pursue the truth wherever it led. That is why I say his mind was set free.

BUT YOU JUST SAID PRIOR and I quote:

“Yes, understanding the origin of life is still a big hurdle, and scientists still do not understand exactly how it happened. But they have no reason to believe it did not happen on its own.”

So the reality is, that you want us to disregard what God says in the Bible, for which there were numerous witnesses (of Christ’s life and resurrection from the dead – and Christ himself attests to the truth of the Old Testament Law and Prophets), and replace it with something THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR. There are two reasons to believe it did not happen on its own – 1. God said He created it. 2. No matter how hard we try we cannot make it happen.

Wow, where do I begin?

First, I was discussing the origin of life here, and not the entire content of my worldview. When I said that scientists do not understand exactly how it happened, "it" refers to the origin of life. I was by no means declaring that there was no evidence for anything I believe.

Second, there is plenty of evidence for the points I stress at my web site, such as the old age of the universe, evolution, mistakes in the Bible, etc. I am by no means stating that I have no evidence for my views.

Third, regarding the origin of the first life--that is, the origin of the first microbes--this event is so far remote, and the evidence of what happened is so scarce, that we cannot be dogmatic about it. However, once those first microbes had come into existence, there is very clear evidence that all other living creatures evolved from those microbes. So when I mention discussion about the nature of the origin of life, I was by no means doubting the evidence for biological evolution. The fact of evolution has been firmly established by science.

Fourth, the fact that there is a gap in our current knowledge when it comes to the first microbes does not prove that this is where we must insert God. Many people jump when they see this gap in scientific knowledge, and they assume that since scientists don't understand it, therefore God did it. This is known as The God of the Gaps. If, for instance, scientists say they don't know where whales come from, people would jump in and insert God into that gap, and say the first whale was a miracle. However we now have a range of intermediate fossils between land creatures and whales, and we now have a good idea how they evolved . Okay, so now does God back out of that gap between land creatures and whales? Do we now search for another gap to put him into? The problem with inserting God every time we find a gap in our current scientific knowledge is that the gaps keep getting smaller. Is God shrinking? One sometimes feels like a fool defending the God-of-the-Gaps, for the gaps in our knowledge keep getting smaller, and the God-of-the-gaps defenders find themselves constantly backpeddling. I cannot say with absolute certainty that God did not step in at this gap and create the first microbe, but I would urge caution in inserting God whenever one sees a gap. If one does not enjoy backpeddling, then one should not be authoritatively inserting the God-of-the-gaps every time she finds a gap in our current knowledge. If there is a gap in our knowledge, why not just say , "We don't know".

Fifth, you say there are two reasons to believe "it" did not happen on it's own. (I assume by "it" you are returning to the subject, that is, the origin of the first microbes.) The first reason you give is that God said he created "it". Oh, really? Exactly where did God say he created the first microbes? Please show me. Are you referring to the Bible? The Bible makes no mention of microbes. Genesis reflects the primitive views of an early tribe that certainly had no microscopes, and had no concept of microbiology. So exactly where does the Bible say that God made the first microbes? Are you just pulling on my leg? The second reason you give is that humans cannot do it. But how does that prove the spontaneous origin of life is impossible? The origin of life was apparently stretched over millions of years in an environment far different from our own. We don't understand it all yet. There is a gap in our knowledge. Your argument here is nothing more than a God-of-the-Gaps argument.

Sixth, regarding the witnesses to the resurrection that you claim, see my web site where I deal with that issue.

You also said, and I quote:

“To win the argument, I would need to prove that all possible means for the spontaneous origination of life were impossible. That I could never do. So I abandoned the fight.”

How do you reason that you have to prove anything? The proof is in the Bible. If they want to claim differently then THEY SHOULD PROVIDE PROOF that their belief is correct. Christians have the Bible – atheists have nothing.

No, the burden of proof was indeed upon me, for I had made a specific claim back then. I had been arguing that the natural origin of life was scientifically impossible. Now since I had made the assertion, the burden of proof was on me to back it up with evidence. I made a fairly noble case for one particular aspect of that assertion, that is, that proteins could not have evolved first. But all of my evidence against the view that proteins evolved first did nothing to prove my assertion that the natural origin of life was scientifically impossible. To prove it impossible, I would have needed to prove that life could not have arisen by any possible method. When I realized what I was up against, I wisely abandoned the fight. I could never prove that the natural origin of life was impossible.

Later my views would evolve even further, to the point where I now think that the first life most likely came by natural causes.

Also, my defense at this site is not of atheism in particular, but of the freedom of thought that allows one to explore beyond the restraint of predefined dogmas.

And yes, I do have something on which to base my views. I have reason and the accumulated scientific evidence.

Now, think carefully for a moment about how illogical and unscientific this ‘spontaneous life’ dilemma really is. How is it that scientists can suggest numerous possibilities, none of which, even under the most favorable of synthesized conditions, can actually produce life, but they can then turn round and expect Christians to accept these possibilities on the grounds of SCIENCE! If your foundation is science, and yet you can’t prove your theory scientifically sound and expect intelligent others to discard their beliefs, then YOU’D BETTER GET REAL ABOUT WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

I am real about what I believe. There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that life evolved from the first microbes.

And no, we have not yet produced life in the lab. In the first place, nobody knows how it began, so we don't even know exactly what to test. In the second place, this would require duplicating the original earth conditions. Although we have a good idea what it was like on the early earth, we don't know all the details, so we cannot know exactly what to duplicate when we design our experiments. Third, the origin of life is thought to have taken millions of years. We can't wait that long to see how an experiment turns out. So the fact that we have not created life in the lab in no way proves that the origin of life by natural means is impossible.

Let me close with a quote from Bossuet
"The greatest disorder of the mind is to believe that things are so because we wish them to be so."

Okay, we both agree that it is a great disorder of the mind to believe things because we wish them to be so. Since we agree to this, let us then look at the facts, and not simply try to confirm what we wish to be so. I think the facts will lead away from the dogmatic assertions of fundamentalism.

We are not alone

2007-06-01T06:35:00.000-04:00

We are not alone. Many have gone through similar experiences of doubt and enlightenment. Another reader shares his story:

I have read your story and was nearly moved to tears at the similarities of thought we possess. I now know that I am not alone as I've felt for the past 10 years. Out of respect for your time and eyesight, I will try to be as concise as I possibly can. As much as I'm sure you feel encouraged by the stories of others, I do not wish to be a burden. That being said, on we go:

I am now 27 years old. My recent decision to leave Christianity and religious dogma of all kinds has thrown my life and the lives of my loved ones into upheaval, even threatening to tear my marriage apart. (Thankfully, we do not have children.) The friends I've made over the past decade, the woman I've married--have all come from the one church I've attended for the past ten years. (I will get into the myriad of church experiences I've had since childhood a bit later). Prior to my momentous decision, each of my Christian friends had learned to accept me as "the Questioning Christian," the one who was just never satisfied with the "company line," but they did so with the expectation that I would always "come to my senses" and accept the "truth." (I must admit that this is better than being ex-communicated for a difference in beliefs, but it's a far cry from a healthy situation!) I cannot begin to explain to you how painful it's been for me to be surrounded by "believers" whose "faith" seemed to find its basis in a lack of desire to question rather than in some loving devotion to God. I berated myself constantly for thinking such "evil" thoughts, and often wondered if Satan asked "to sift me as wheat" like Peter. Indeed, no one else seemed to be as tormented with questions as I was! This would typically result in a pendulum swing of thought and emotion, ranging from pride that God thought so highly of me (which I would then feel guilty about) to wondering if I was going insane from believing that there was a demon influencing my thoughts. I find it near miraculous that I can laugh about it today. Countless times I have been looked upon with sincere pity by fellow Christians who could never figure out, "What's wrong with Jeremy???" Not knowing that I had a choice, I internalized those questions and wondered the same thing concerning myself. Christianity has done horrible things to my mind, Merle, and I've been beating myself up for years, trying to tell myself that I was the problem. No more.

I was born on February 11th, 1980 in Galliano, Louisiana. My father has never been religious, and to this day I have no idea what he thinks of religion...or politics...or anything. But that's an entirely different story. My mother, however, has been a searcher all her life. She grew up in the Catholic tradition, but found it to be a "lifeless tradition." She wanted excitement, and she found it in Pentecostalism--in spades. The Neo-Pentecostal movement formed my first impression of Christianity. (You may cringe if you like). Aided by my earliest memories as well as my mother's testimony, I was not your average child. My mind took in and assimilated information at alarming rate. I was truly the "inquiring scientist'" that children are described to be. My inquiry was fearless--that is, until Christian dogma came along. Combined with the emotionalism of the Pentecostal movement, I learned explicitly and implicitly to disdain knowledge and intellectual matters (outside of Christian thought, of course), shunning them for emotions, A.K.A. "specific direction from God" and "spiritual experience." Even more terrifying, I learned that God would make fools of those who "leaned on his own understanding." I began to grasp Christian concepts--the explicit as well as the implicit--from a very early age. I was fascinated by the supernatural through the help of Pentecostalism, and the concept of an ever unfolding spiritual war happening all around me filled me with fright and wonder. In fact, I can encapsulate everything I've ever learned about the Bible in those two words: fright and wonder. Fright kept me chained to the dogma, and wonder kept me asking the questions. This is a recipe for some serious discontent, as you well know. I can still remember lying in my bed at night at the age of six or seven, wondering incessantly if God was going to send me to hell for kissing a girl on the school bus, and this was only the tip of the iceberg, a very small window into what was a torturous thought-life even as a young boy. I've spoken with my mother years ago about my troubles, and I do not blame her--but I still feel the residual anger toward what I was taught so recklessly. So much time lost to worrying over groundless fears! Children are so vulnerable to this terrible indoctrination. They depend on their parents and guardians to teach them "how things came to be this way," and a large majority of otherwise intelligent people persist in teaching these defenseless minds to regard incredible, terrible, unjustified claims as self-evident. How can this go on and not be construed as child cruelty? But I digress by preaching to the choir, here. :-)

About the age of nine, a terrible falling-out occurred between my family and the leadership of the only church I had known. From that point, up until my late teens, church attendance was spotty at best. A Methodist service here, a Southern Baptist service there, a Catholic Mass on Christmas--it was all good. I took it in stride, not remembering much. All in all, I was happy to be free from the church culture of my youth: 4 hour long, fire and brimstone lessons on Wednesday and Sunday nights (no children's classes) and of course, the Sunday service. As God-conscious as I was at such an early age, I still liked my episodes of Knight Rider on television, too. Our flight from Pentacostalism was just that--still Christians, just not THAT kind of Christian anymore.

My teen years were pretty typical, I think. Experimentation with sex, drugs and rock'n'roll. To be sure, my biggest headache concerning my childhood religious beliefs during this time centered around the "demonic qualities" of rock music--a doctrine virtually pounded into my head during my years spent as the child of a Pentecostal mother. Seminar after seminar vilified the kind of music I loved most. People don't seem to understand the anguish I went through in trying to understand why particular guitar sounds and drum patterns were pleasing to the Devil. In my heart, I constantly wondered, "What does that say about me? I love Led Zeppelin!"

I understand that this position is extreme--even for Christianity. These are not the reasons I've shed religious dogma. More on that later. I'm simply describing the mental anguish caused by religious dogma in my formative years. Believers raised in more conservative circles may wish to point to the specific teachings as the root of my anguish and not the religion itself, but those seminars made a very strong case as to why I should believe that rock music was a form of Satan worship--especially to an eight year old! Scriptures were even used to back up the claims! All the children, young and old, were required to watch so that we could recognize the "wiles of the Devil." In the culture I grew up in, Satan and his minions were present in everything--even in my Transformers toys. We were pressed to burn them, along with any other toys that possessed "Satanic" qualities. I say again, it is near miraculous that my little mind held up under the strain of such teachings. It has taken me at least a decade to forgive.

I did not become heavily involved with religion again until the age of 17. Chasing hedonistic pursuits had landed me into trouble on various fronts, and nightmarish experiences with hallucinogenic drugs pushed me to the breaking point. One experience in particular is seared into my memory, as I spent nearly 12 hours in a kind of religious psychosis, convinced that I was forever separated from God and doomed to hell for my transgressions. (If you think an obsession with hell is painful enough in everyday experience, you should try it on LSD). This experience in particular turned me back to religion, and I was convinced that God had used my drug experience to put me on the straight and narrow. My mother and my brother began attending church as well, and we enjoyed a period of intense closeness. The particular brand of church we attended was a more moderate version of the Pentecostal church I grew up in. The ecstatic utterances and spontaneous dancing, laying on of hands and experience seeking was still the norm, however. I regularly heard the pastor of the church talk as if God were truly speaking to him directly, and I became enthralled with the idea that I could become so spiritual that God would speak to me also. But it never happened. I would often wonder why. Did I not pray enough? Should I have shared with that one person I was afraid to share with? Surely that was it! Next time, I would do better! This began in me a cycle of reaching for an impossible goal and then becoming disillusioned only to "repent" and do it all over again. Like you, I have walked up for countless "altar calls" in order to re-dedicate my life to the Lord. After awhile, it became embarrassing to continually walk up to the front, so I would try to do it quietly in my seat--but would start to feel guilty for being "ashamed" of God. Again, I realize how neurotic this practice is, but I am certainly not alone, and faith-based, dogmatic belief is to blame for it. I did not ask for the such misery gift-wrapped as "good news," and I was not comforted by the words of those who did not feel my misery due to a lack of thought on the issue. I continually tried to convince myself that I was the problem, that I had some innate mental illness which caused me to misinterpret the teachings of the Bible. I desperately wanted to believe that I was the problem and routinely begged God to change my personality (which scared me to the core) so that I could truly believe and be happy as a Christian. I was petrified of admitting to anyone (myself included) that I liked myself more as a non-Christian than when I was trying to be "holy." No matter how many times I read Scriptures to "fix myself," no matter how many times well-meaning believers tried to cast demons out of me by the laying on of hands, the mixed messages I was getting from the Bible and from believers were driving me toward mental illness. After repeated conversations with older believers about the evils of rock music and my lack of repentance in this area, (which ultimately meant that I didn't truly love the Lord), I quietly faded away from the religious life. The guilt I felt became more and more intense, as I was sure that my reason for leaving was inadequate and full proof of my "rebelliousness." In my eyes, everything that brought me happiness was now evil and contaminated by my apostasy, and I needed to feel guilty as my punishment! There was much to feel guilty about. Surely, your fundamentalist friend, Jeffrey Wilson would say that I was getting what I deserved. And I believed him, too--for a long time after this. Many years passed before I started to realize that guilt and fear are terrible motivators for genuine love and gratitude.

At the age of 18, I joined the Navy and transferred to a ship on the east coast. I was far from home and enjoying my new-found freedom, but I was not prepared to handle the responsibility. In the year I had spent away from religion, my apostate mind was sufficiently seared so that I had no thoughts of God. :-) I was dating a nice girl, felt more like myself again, and planned on marrying her within the year. I messed up, and the relationship was no more. I was alone in a strange place, and so I sought out my old friend, Jesus. Surely he would take me back! Jesus was the one who used to protect me from Satan and his baddies at night. He even used to protect me from the vengeful God who was always threatening to throw me into the Lake of Fire! I imagined Jesus stepping in on my behalf and pleading for the Father to give me one more chance. But I was beginning to wonder when Jesus would get tired of me. When would I stop being so rebellious and feel grateful to God? The question burned within me again, and I sought out a church similar to the one I had attended before. This marks the beginning of a journey that lasted nearly ten years, culminating in my new-found position as non-believer.

After dabbling in the Pentecostal circles for a month or two, I began to "backslide." I prayed that God would lead me to a church that would meet my needs, help me to be truly righteous. A few weeks later, I walked into a McDonald's on my military base and there sat two young men, reading their Bibles. They seemed to be engaged in a deep discussion. I felt the confirmation from within, telling me that this was my answered prayer. I struck up a conversation with them, and the leader of the two latched onto me, determined to help me become a "real" Christian. This man soon began to challenge my beliefs, even challenged the way I "prayed Jesus into my heart!" He told me that I needed to be baptized with a full knowledge of the truth in order to be saved. I fought like hell. I yelled and screamed. I called my mother for support. But in the end, I believed that God put me there for a reason, and so I "admitted" that I had never been a Christian. (Considering how many times I "re-dedicated" my life to the Lord and all the "sin" I had been in prior to that point, it felt futile to argue that I was a Christian). A study group was formed, and I was taught the basics of salvation from the ground-up. It was obvious to me that this church was serious about its beliefs, and they made it clear to me that I needed to do the same for others, even for people who believed themselves to be Christians already! I struggled terribly with this, but who was I to argue? I was 19, and I wanted to save souls. Indeed, they even pointed to the humility of Apollos when he discovered that he did not know about "real" baptism! I knew people would hate to hear it, but I had to proclaim the "truth." It was the loving thing to do, right?

As being a Christian goes, this movement did some great things for me: I was forced to truly "know my Bible" and to learn how to form arguments for the validity of Scripture. Pentecostals are more interested in experiences, per se. This transition in thought was very much a paradigm shift for me: from intuition and inner voices to scriptural authority and reason. Making this change proved to be very difficult, however. As much as I wanted to use reason and logic to bolster my Faith, I couldn't seem to shake the weight I had placed on my feelings and experiences. I read many books about the errors associated with the charismatic movement, trying to help myself along. I saw the validity of the arguments, but I had no volitional control back then. Trying to deal with my hyperactive conscience was torturous, and I soon hated being a Christian once more. Yet there was a problem this time. I had made a life-time commitment, and I felt I needed to do everything in my power to "think rightly." The community of Christians I had come to know expected me to be a true disciple of Christ, to live out the Great Commission. I knew that I needed to get help. I couldn't walk away just because I was miserable, could I? No! Miserable or not, I felt that I needed to live in accordance with the Truth.

From 1999 to 2004, I made incredible break-throughs in my thought-life. I saw a Christian counselor and read books about "making every thought captive to Christ." I learned how to avoid falling down that hole of groundless fears--at least in the framework of Christianity. I wasn't constantly plagued with accusatory thoughts, and I began to think more clearly about who I was. That's when pesky words and concepts like "self-esteem" and "perfectionist complex" and "self-worth" and "self-concept" began to enter my mind. Although I couldn't find these words in the Bible, they sure seemed to hold the key to my healing! Even more mind-blowing, I learned that my conscience could be mistrained and was not the voice of God! A part of me felt set free, but another part of me was perplexed. Where did these ideas come from? Were they "biblical"? I didn't know it at the time, but I had started my journey toward being a liberal Christian. First stop: moderation.

To be sure, I was never a good "Fundamentalist." Although I felt guilty for admitting it, I felt too "intelligent" to believe that a snake actually talked to Adam and Eve. I remember being petrified the first time I "confessed" this to a friend of mine, but he didn't burn me at the stake. In fact, he informed me that most Christian scholars interpret the story as an allegory. I was dumbfounded! Was it possible to have such thoughts and to be a Christian? I felt that a narrow gate had been opened to a vast expanse! Would this be the way to my happiness as a Christian? For quite a while, I thought so. But the unthinkable happened. My new-found perspective had to be applied to the whole of scripture. I had never thought of something so fearful and wondrous before! (There are those two words again). This was very problematic to me. Who was I to decide how scripture should be regarded? Was it enough to form my own opinions and to keep them to myself? These were nasty thoughts, indeed. I doubt I need to extrapolate very much to show you where this is going. In the next two years, I would conclude that I had taken the Bible at face value, and had therefore, very inadequate reasons for belief---the nastiest thought of all. It all began there, my friend, but it would be a long, hard road before I was able to admit to myself that I had given up on Faith--much less to admit it to others, namely my wife!

My transition from moderate to more liberal happened gradually. I began to be bothered by my private, "alternate take" on the Bible. I felt somewhat guilty, but I knew that it was time to be the "Questioning Christian." My first forays into exploration were timid at best. Lee Strobel's, "The Case for Faith," and the usual suspects were rounded up for a crash-course in apologetics, but my upbringing still had a hold on me. I had long been warned to watch out for the "dangerous knowledge" of the skeptics and the atheists. Although I fancied myself a "juror" at the Grand Trial of Truth, it was not so. I was only concerned with one side, only concerned with finding a little "proof" to back up my foregone conclusions. I can remember looking at a book of essays by Bertrand Russell with absolute dread. I wanted to read it, but I was afraid of my desire. I ran away, thinking I was a juror when I was little more than a pawn for the Defense. The flames within were really stoked when I later realized that this is the modus operandi of modern believers everywhere. Actually, I can't give them even that much credit. Today, the average believer gets his/her "faith" in the form of certitude, combined with a package of conventional wisdom that states: "Shhh...quiet those questions and devilish doubts. All of those nice apologists have done the hard work for you. There are many reasons for Faith outside of Scripture!" Far from doing even a miniscule amount of work, i.e. actually reading the book, the average believer is just content to hear such a comforting statement and to leave it at that. I could not ignore the dishonesty of such an action.

But prior to that realization, I just drifted. I became listless and evasive, ducking out of every church service I could. The glorious heyday we once shared as a congregation had degenerated into something of a struggling support group, position-less on nearly everything out of respect to "tolerance." Many rose up and spoke loudly to rouse the congregation into action, but we were all lulled to sleep in the doldrums that exist between "certainty" and "uncertainty." I was disgusted by the halfway house we were occupying, and although those who spoke up attributed the slump to "a lack of faith and action," I knew there was something else under the surface for me. I realized how often I had launched myself headfirst into the "lifestyle" to forget about my questions, intellectual and ethical. Now that the lifestyle had faded, all I had were my questions, and it struck me that no amount of activity--no matter how productive--proves anything about the literal truth of my religion. (For some reason, I am one of those rare people who really NEED to know if what I believe is true. I want no illusions, no matter how comforting or useful). I knew that I had to do something soon, but I wasn't ready to ask The Question. Another year passes, the listlessness turns into a low-level depression.

Suddenly, I find something to care about. I read a book about climate change, "The Weathermakers." I begin to ponder why religionists, on the average, do not care about the planet. A gospel song comes to mind: "This world is not my home, I'm just passing through..." Another unthinkable thought begins to form in my head, but I push it away. Six months pass, and I unwittingly pick up a book that will be the catalyst for my abandonment of Faith. It didn't "prove" God false, however. It didn't attack any religion, Christianity included. But it did help me to finally ask the un-askable: "Do I really need a Savior?" The question came and I thought I might die. I waited. Life went on.

The name of the book is "Ishmael," and the author is Daniel Quinn. I would not be surprised if you've heard of it, as it was written in 1991. Mr. Quinn has not posited a new religion, and I no longer need an "answer book." It was simply the first step in a journey that would lead to Darwin, Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, dialogues with atheists and believers and lots and lots of journaling. As time went on, it became more and more clear that I was never the problem. The problem has always been the dogma. As I currently stand, I simply do not know the number of the gods, and no one will coerce me to make absolute claims on insufficient evidence. I will only grant the degree of certainty afforded by the evidence--what everyone of us does in every sphere of discourse--except religion! What a revolutionary thought it is to realize this! I am not required to be disingenuous! I am not required to act "as if" when I truly do not know! I can now resume the fearless inquiry of my childhood! I can be a juror and examine both sides, unafraid of unraveling my nicely packaged worldview! I can revise, redefine, change my mind! What freedom! The shackles are off!

Most recently, I've come to a startling conclusion. Even if the claims of the Bible were true in its entirety, I do not think I could bring myself to freely worship the god of the bible. This has floored me, as it's taken me ten years to admit to myself that the god of the bible is a destructive, childish tyrant. How truly apostate I must be when my ethical values are beyond that of the Creator! I simply cannot worship a god such as this in a genuine way, and I will not engage in verbal gymnastics to make apologies for this god. The only option beyond this is to worship Naked Power, and there is nothing in me that wishes to do so. Outside of my very real intellectual problems with the biblical and modern conceptions of Faith, I have ethical reasons to oppose such a god. I sometimes struggle with irrational fears involving hell-fire concerning this statement, but a lack of "proof" to the contrary does not add up to having a valid reason to make absolute statements as to the existence hell, either. Such a simple thought was impossible for me to think prior to this period in my life. I was chained to my fears--but only until I realized that I held the key the entire time. If the Creator of the Universe is the Christian god, and this "all powerful, all knowing, all loving" deity fashioned me uniquely, then a skeptic I shall be! If this god will condemn me to eternal hellfire for refusing to be disingenuous, then I guess I never had a chance.

In closing, I would like to thank you for sharing your story with the world. I am sure you've helped many to see that they, too, are not wicked for wishing to use their reason and intellect, to question, not terrified of being wrong. How freeing it is to no longer blindly accept terrible, unverifiable propositions! It is not self-evidently virtuous to suspend one's "god-given" reason in favor of fantastic propositions that dangle all of humanity over a flaming pit! Is it any wonder why dogma is so hard to shed? Never again will I bow to an oppressive doctrine of fear, calling it "good news." I would not do it even it if were true--but I will not shy away from the truth all the same. Thank you for reading the story of my life.

Yes, there is freedom from the fear of hell and guilt that can cripple the thought life of a child. This man has found his way to a new life. I congratulate him for his courage and resolve.

Louis Pasteur, Hero of Science

2007-05-27T10:53:00.000-04:00

Previously we have looked at the creationist claims that Louis Pasteur is on their side (here). Recently I have purchased a copy of Louis Pasteur: The Man and his Theories which was at the center of the controversy here. I would like to elaborate further on the contributions of Pasteur, and re-address the controversy concerning his pro-evolution quote.

---------------------

First, Pasteur is famous for many contributions to microbiology, including his experiments showing that the microbes that cause fermentation and food decay are living organisms that generate from other living organisms. Before Pasteur, there had been considerable debate as to what caused fermentation. Pasteur showed conclusively that the microbes that cause it generate from parent microbes, and that they do no appear spontaneously. Did Pasteur prove that spontaneous generation is impossible in all possible circumstances? No, of course not. Pasteur did not test all possible circumstances! That would have been impossible. He tested only sample circumstances that were representative of his world, and applicable to his study of fermentation and decay. That does not prove that life could not have originated on its own in circumstances that differ with the tests done by Pasteur. In Pasteur's own words,

I looked for spontaneous generation without finding it, but I do not believe it to be impossible. (Source: Louis Pasteur: The Man and his Theories, p 90)

Pasteur did not prove that spontaneous generation is impossible. Does that make his findings worthless? No, of course not. He had overwhelming evidence that, in normal circumstances, spontaneous generation did not occur. Therefore, we can control fermentation, decay, and infection by controlling the presence of existing microbes. For instance, Pasteur wrote:

If I had the honour of being a surgeon, convinced as I am of the dangers of which we are exposed by the microbial germs on the surfaces of all the objects about us, especially in hospitals, not only would I use absolutely clean instruments but, after washing my hands with the greatest care and submitting them to momentary contact with a flame... I would use no lint, bandages or sponges which had not been exposed to air at a temperature of 130 deg to 150 deg. (ibid., p168-169)

The circumstances faced by modern surgeons are quite different from the world as it existed billions of years ago. Today oxygen and other life forms will destroy precursor materials to bacterial life. Billions of years ago, there was little oxygen and no pre-existing life to destroy those chemicals. Yes, understanding the origin of life is still a big hurdle, and scientists still do not understand exactly how it happened. But they have no reason to believe it did not happen on its own.

Of course we have reasons to believe certain views of how life originated might be wrong. Years ago I had argued for creation on the Internet, but I quickly gave up on young-earth creation after I saw it was indefensible. Instead, I turned to a prolonged defence of the view that God was required for that first step in the origin of life. My argument was centered on an early prevailing view, that life began as proteins that evolved in a primordial soup until they became living cells. And I think I made a convincing case that this was unlikely. In fact, I think I won! That was the only battle I won as a creationist debater. But then someone pointed out to me that I had presented a good case only against one view--the protein-first view--and that this view was no longer the prevailing hypotheses. To win the argument, I would need to prove that all possible means for the spontaneous origination of life were unlikely. That I could never do. So I abandoned the fight.

We still do not know how life originated, although we have made much progress in studying the problem. The latest issue of Scientific American, for instance, includes an article describing how simple self-replicating molecules may have started the process.

Showing that life does not originate spontaneously in a modern garbage dump by no means proves that it could not have originated in far different circumstances over millions of years.

Pasteur studied the issue of spontaneous generation to find the truth. He wrote:

Religions, philosophies, atheism, materialism, or its opposite--none of these is relevant ot the matter...I might even add that, scientifically speaking, I am indifferent to them all. The question is purely one of fact. I approached it without preconceived ideas, as ready to admit, should experience compel me to do so, that spontaneous generation existed. (ibid, p 89)

This is the true essence of science: the honest search for truth, regardless of what it means to one's preconceived ideas.

---------------
Now let's look again at the controversial quote:

Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely. (ibid, p. 122)

The controversy is whether the parenthetical phrase mentioning millions of years was actually written by Pasteur. At this blog, "Honey" argues that the book that this quote comes from sometimes inserts words in parenthesis that do not appear in the original quote. Further, she points out that an almost identical quote appears at The Life and Works of Louis Pasteur, but it does not have the phrase in parentheses. I have paged through that book, and it is indeed possible that some of the comments in parenthesis look as though they may be explanatory material added by a translator or commentator, but I do not know. Particularly, I cannot tell if the phrase in question is part of the original quote or not. Accordingly, I have noted that on the web page where I quote it.

The main point is that Pasteur promoted the teaching of evolution in that passage. I assume that Pasteur also believed that the earth was millions of years old, but I have no direct proof of that.

-----------------------------

In closing, here is another quote from Pasteur:

If I had to live my life over again, I would try always to remember that admirable precept of Bossuet: "The greatest disorder of the mind is to believe that things are so because we wish them to be so."

Pasteur was truly a mind set free!

Religion and Medicine

2007-04-22T08:46:00.000-04:00

Here is a new book I found recently, and it is well worth reading.

The author takes on the claim that religion is proven to be good for your health. The book show why these claims misrepresent the scientific literature. The claimed studies often fail to take other factors into consideration, or they commit the "sharpshooters fallacy" in which they search the data for any combination that suggests that religion promotes health, while ignoring the majority of the data. This book is a good introduction to the methods of scieintific inquiry into medical claims. It shows why we should not be led by false claims of cures.

Chapter 9 debunking the claimed effects of long-distance prayer is particularly important.

I recommend this book.

(Click here to see more about it.)

"A Wonderful Plan for Your LIfe"

2007-03-10T05:34:00.000-05:00

From time to time I like to search the web to find out what people have to say about my web site. My last search netted the following interesting link from a book that quotes an extensive portion of my site. The book is called The Way of the Master: How to Share Your Faith Simply, Effectively, Biblically. The authors quote from my website (here).

The book argues that those who proclaim the gospel as "God has a wonderful plan for your life" are missing much of the Bible message. It argues that the Biblical message was about repentance.

The authors quote with favor my discussion of the failure of many Christians to find the happiness that is sometimes claimed to be a product of the faith. They agree that those who try to reach Non-Christians by proclaiming that God has a wonderful plan for their lives, when they themselves realize that they are not happy and are struggling with a difficult life, are making a false promise.

The authors emphasize repentance and turning to righteousness. I agree that we all need to turn from the thoughtless ways that we often treat others, and live better lives. But I disagree that the Bible has the best blueprint to achieving that good life.

The book offers an interesting alternative to the popular "Our Therapist Who Art in Heaven" view of Christianity. Those who sell God as a divine therapist who is on call 24/7 need to explain why so many believers are struggling in their inner being.

Gehenna

2007-02-08T12:34:00.003-05:00

Many of the writers of the New Testament may not have conceived of hell as a place of eternal torment. A reader observes:

There is no such place as HELL.

Hell, mentioned even in your bible has NOTHING to do with fire. "Hell fire" mentioned in the KJV is from the Greek word "Gehenna." It is a valley south of Jerusalem. It used to be the city garbage dump. As such it was on fire. As garbage and organic materials were constantly thrown into this fire, the worms there did not die out, but kept on multiplying until there was nothing left to eat. The valley is STILL in Jerusalem, but the fire is OUT and there are no WORMS there.The word "hell" in the KJV is translated from the Greek word "Hades" which means the UNSEEN or etymologically, UN=PERCEIVE or IMPERCEPTIBLE. There can NOT be feelings, torture, pain, etc., in a place that by its very name means to have NO PERCEPTION OF ANYTHING!!

There is NO WORD in either the Hebrew or Greek scriptures that means "eternal" or "everlasting" or "for ever and ever." Since there is NO SUCH WORD IN THE BIBLE, all such translations are WRONG and misleading.

The concept of hell seems to have grown with time.

Gehenna is the name for a valley southwest of Jerusalem, where garbage was thrown. In the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Romans threw many corpses and much trash into Gehenna. As there was a constant supply of bodies, the worm did not die. As there was a constant flow of trash, the fire did not go out. The gospels say that Jesus warned that people could be thrown into Gehenna (translated as hell in many Bibles) where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. The authors may well have literally been referring to this event, and not to a future destruction of souls. Having the advantage of hindsight--the gospels were probably written after the fall of Jerusalem--the gospel writers could have put these words into the mouth of Jesus, and made it look like he predicted these things. To the Jews, who honored the body and valued a proper burial, the thought that the nation would be destroyed and bodies would be so horribly treated if people did not repent would have been considered a very stern warning.

So one can well make the case that the earthly valley Gehenna is all that Jesus meant by hell. Other verses such as the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus or the book of Revelations may or may not refer to literal eternal torment, or they could have other meanings. It is an interesting study.

See also:
What Does the Bible Teach About Hell?
Jesus' Teaching on Hell

"It's time for me"

2007-02-08T12:33:00.001-05:00

Here is an email discussing the implications of new views.

I've been engulfed in your website, it is amazing. I'm on a journey in my life to find if what I've known my whole life is true, that being Christianity..It's been very hard for me, but everything on your site makes perfect sense. Everyone I'm around blindly believes the religion and never questions it...my girlfriend of 4 years has said if I come to the conclusion that atheism is what I believe, then she will leave me. She wants a Christian family, etc. So I have this burden on me, and knowing how crushed my parents would be if they found out I was atheist, keeps me holding on to Christianity. But I'm tired of thinking about other people, it's time for me.

Yes, I agree, it is time for you. I do not mean that in a selfish way. For when you honestly admit what is going on in your mind, only then will you experience the joy of setting your mind free.

I think that many people continue through life as zombies, not believing the things they say they believe, but scared of what people will say if they admit their doubts. Is it like the fairy tale, where many can see that the emperor has no clothes, but nobody wants to face the social consequences of saying so. One can only spend so much time admiring the emperor's clothes when he can see that the man has no clothes. If you and I can see that the emperor has no clothes, then our minds will never really be free until we say what we see. If your faith has "no clothes", then you may well want to say so.

I wish you well, and hope you truly experience the joy of the mind set free.

Should we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

2007-02-08T12:32:00.000-05:00

Does opening our mind to questions necessarily lead away from God? Here is an email dealing with that issue:

I have just found your site while researching the question of God without Jesus and The Bible. To be brief, I have been in a questioning mode for the last 5 years after being in church for 55 years. But, God has been too good to me and to interactive in my life, still today, that I can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Why do so many who begin to question their faith, either go purely agnostic, or atheistic?

I can not deny God. But yes there are many things I have learned and believed over the past 50 years that I now question big time--but as I say--God is far too real in my life. Do you think that one MUST throw the baby out with the bathwater? That one must disbelieve in God altogether if he begins to doubt certain criteria? And like you, after half a century as a student AND teacher of the Bible, I have been strongly startled by this change--but no matter what I question, I just can not delete my personal relationship with God himself --He has been and is far too involved in my life for me to do that. Do you not feel that a man can keep his relationship with God, yet still question and ponder all the other trappings? I'd really love to hear from you, as this really is a strange and heartfelt journey for me.

I know of a Christian turned atheist who was glad to denounce God, but cried because in doing so, he had to leave his best friend ( JESUS ) whom he missed very much. I am questioning the exact opposite..... the total, certain belief in God himself, even if He is not, ultimately, the GOD of The Bible. please respond if you will.

One of the hurdles to questioning the faith is the thought that God is inside of you. Many of us have believed for years that God is literally residing inside our own minds; that he is thoroughly aware of every thought as it occurs; that an open link exists to the very throne of the universe; that communication with the ruler of the universe is only a prayer away; and that God is actively inserting thoughts into our mind to guide and comfort us. Some find it acceptable to question assertions about the Bible, but it becomes very hard to question this inner voice. After all, God supposedly hears every thought, and can supposedly bring trouble to the mind that is not thinking the right thoughts. Is a thought that questions God an allowable thought? If not, then one cannot even ask those questions, for there is no private place where one can retreat to think things through in privacy. A God that is "hearing" every thought eliminates any moment of complete inner privacy.

The idea of this loss of privacy can be enslaving, but many also find it comforting. They like the idea of a constant companion inside the mind, keeping thoughts from going too far astray, and providing peace to the troubled mind when needed.

We find that the writer above does not want to question this relationship with God, for he does not want to think of leaving his best friend behind.

Sidestepping the question of whether a creator God exists--a question I don't usually address--the issue here is whether God is intimately involved in a relationship with people, and whether this relationship should be cultivated.

Being scientifically minded, my natural response is to ask for the evidence that God really is inside your mind communicating with you. Yes, you may find the concept comforting, but others find it comforting to imagine that Abraham Lincoln or some other person is inside communicating with them. That is a technique that helps some people clarify their thought flow when nobody is around to talk to. They simply summon their imaginary friend, and imagine speaking to him, thus helping them to organize their thoughts and to think of other perspectives to the problem. It is not real, but some people find it a helpful technique. Could the same thing be happening in prayer? The fact that you find it comforting does not mean it is based on reality.
What exactly does God say to you? For any real relationship requires two-way communication. Does he provide you with information you would not otherwise know? Does he give you advice that you could not think of yourself? If so, do you claim that people who communicate with God in this way intuitively know things they would not otherwise know, or have a better judgement in moral decisions? Both claims could easily be tested by scientific experiments, but I think we already know what we would find. It is very doubtful that either claim would yield statistically significant results in a controlled study. And if the claims do not stand to scientific scrutiny, can you be sure they are true?

During the years of my "personal relationship with Jesus", I readily whispered a quiet prayer to God many times a day. Many times I thought I heard God directing me. Sometimes I dogmatically followed that inner direction. After all, who was I to question a thought that had been inserted into my mind by God himself? But I no longer whisper prayers, and no longer assume that a thought in my mind must be the direct revelation of God. And I find that my mind is now much more at peace. Perhaps the same will work for you. Or perhaps you will continue to find more peace in life if you assume this direct communication.

You certainly do not need to throw away your belief that a God was somehow behind creation, or even your belief that there is a God inside of you. You do not need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But I do think you need to ask if there is a baby in the bathwater. If you search and find no baby in the bathwater, then you can throw out the bathwater without fear.

An answer to every question that needs answering

2007-02-08T09:01:00.004-05:00

I received this email with an amazing promise, that there is a way to find an answer to every question that needs answering.

Although I do not claim to have all the answers to life's questions, I do know that God has an eternal purpose for everything that is allowed to happen as well as what is not allowed. God loves man, as his creation, yet mans natural body and well-being is not his first concern for man. God's first concern would be for a man's soul, his eternal destination. The Bible says life is but a vapor. The Bible states in 2 Corinthians 4:18, "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." While many times we see tragedy, God, through his Omniscience, sees eternal consequences. He knows how 1 situation, as tragic as it may be, could have a greater impact eternally even more so.

As I have come across & read some of your writings, I can tell you are a very educated and wise man. I know you probably have many more questions of how and why things in this world happen. I am sure you have questions that I have no answers to; however, I know a man who has all the answers, His name is Jesus. If you truly seek a relationship with him I assure you he will answer every question in your mind that needs answered. I did not write this email to anger or upset you, just in obedience to God. I have never responded to anything like this before, I hope you sense God's love this hour.

I can assure this writer that I, and many others, have indeed truly sought a relationship with Jesus, indeed have lived in what we understood to be such a relationship for years, and yet did not find the answer to every question when we needed an answer. It is those unanswered questions that have led us on our journey of discovery and exploration, and have led us beyond the faith we inherited.

The writer seems to be satisfied with the answer that earthly tragedies are acceptable because God knows they bring the best eternal good. I wonder, for instance, how the recent tragic tsunami was for have eternal good. If such tsunamis are the best that could happen for eternal good, why are scientists and engineers working to develop better warning systems to prevent such disasters in the future? If small pox plagues and tsunamis are planned by God for eternal purposes, why are scientists working to eliminate or minimize the consequences of such events? The answer given by this writer--"greater impact eternally"--only increases my questions.

I wonder if the writer has indeed found the answer to every question that his mind needs to have answered. If so, perhaps his mind asks fewer questions than mine does.

Omphalos

2007-02-08T09:01:00.003-05:00

Here is an email reviving the old argument that the earth was created young with an appearance of age. This is commonly referred to as the Omphalos argument, after the book by that name that popularized this argument.

I've read your page on 'How Old is the Earth' and I am glad to see that you addressed what I call the 'Apparent Age' theory (ie light from the stars was created enroute as well as other aspects you did not address). It appears that the sum total of your argument against this theory is your subjective characterization of it as being deceptive.

Was it deceptive to create Adam as a fully grown man even though he was only one day old or was it simply a constraint of creating a being who was immediately self-sufficient unlike a day old baby? Was it deceptive to create fully grown trees bearing fruit so that Adam and the other animals had something to eat or was it simply a constraint of creating an environment in which man and animals could immediately survive without having to wait years for a seed to grow into a tree and bear fruit? Was it deceptive to create a star or a supernova AND create the light that would have emanated from it in order to provide light to the earth or was it simply a constraint of needing to provide light to the earth and not wanting or needing to wait millions or billions of years for the light to arrive?

Do you have anything other than a subjective characterization to address this argument? I suspect you don't or you would have already included it in your article. I look forward to hearing back from you.

Well, yes God could have created light en route from the stars at the moment he created the stars. But would that light contain a history of the stars as it arrived at us? As I explain at my site, the arriving starlight shows details of supernova explosions and other stellar activity. The light from SN 1987A even had a built in delay for the reflected light to arrive at earth. Scientists say the delay was caused by the light needing to travel 8 months to the clouds it reflected off of before it came in our direction. I suspect the writer has no answer for this. Why was the reflected light delayed 8 months in reaching us?

For more on this argument, see Omphalos.

"I was a fundamentalist Christian for 27 years"

2007-02-08T09:01:00.001-05:00

Here is another email I received:

I was a fundamentalist Christian for 27 years. I became "born again" after joining the Air Force in 1979. I remember reading a bible I had bought and for the first time read what the New Testament said about salvation. I realized that I was a great sinner and needed help. I was upset with the way my life was going and saw no way out. I was in my barracks by myself reading the bible when I came across the passage "If you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved". I bowed my head and repeated this to God and put my trust in him. I felt great release and love flowed into my heart. I started to go to church, go out with Christian friends, sing and witness in the park and of course read my bible day and night.

For a year I was on cloud 9 but then I was sent to an Air Force base in England. At RAF Lakenheath (a nuclear bomber base) I was charged with guarding the various weapons we had and prepare for nuclear war with the Soviet Union. It was an exciting time for me since I truly believed that the Rapture would happen anyday now and was not worried at all about the world situation. In fact the worse it got, the better. But I noticed my spiritual life was leveling out. I found it harder and harder to keep my body from sinning. I struggled with thoughts of sin and battled everyday with unclean thoughts. I was going to a Full Gospel Charasmatic Church in the meantime that believed in all the fruits of the Spirit. I remember watching the healing services and seeing the same people go up week after week with the same complaints. Never did I see someone healed of a major illness, it was always a back problems or cold. I then began to see what power does to people. The pastor was only part time but he wanted to be full time and bullied the members of the church to pay him a full time salary. Anyone who opposed him was cast out of the church, including me. I returned to the United States, still in the Air Force and went to another Full Gospel Church.

I was beginning to see problems with the bible. I saw that there were some very real contradictions that couldn't be explained but I just let it go believing that God had a reason for everything in the bible. One thing that really bothered me was the violence that God used in the Old Testament against various nations. I just couldn't understand how God could order Israel to kill entire cities, including women and small children. I imagined them being lined up for execution, the woman holding onto their children who were crying and then getting a sword run through both of them. It didn't make sense to me at all and I was very upset at this. I imagined myself an Israelite soldier being ordered to kill children. "Would I do it?" I thought. If I didn't I would be disobeying God and would be killed and sent to hell. That thought put terror in my mind and I quickly thought of different things.

I also questioned the idea of an eternal hell. Again I thought how could God send someone to a lake of fire for ever and ever? How about all these people in the world who never heard of Jesus? Were they doomed? The Church was telling me that they were and that God was justified in sending them to hell and in fact one day we would all rejoice at the justice of God for sending those people there.

I also saw the state of the Church itself in two parts. The first was Church history which was terrible! The entire 2000 years since Christ was filled with violence, hatred, greed and powerful Christians doing bad things to others. I saw the Church take over the Roman Empire and turn it into an Empire of Christian horror. People with different opinions were called heritics and hounded out of the cities. When the Empire finally fell and the Church was the only law, things really got out of hand. I don't know how many people were killed in the name of Christ, but it was not a few.

The second part about the Church was what I saw people doing now. I saw very little love in the Church. I saw greed and people seeking power and money. I saw various churches that didn't care one lick about their members except how they could continue to contribute money to the Church. I was amazed that I never found a man or woman that I could say truly lived the life I envisioned a Christian should live. It seemed that the Church as a whole was even worse than the general public. Divorce was rampant, various sexual sins were all the rage and money was the new god.

The straw that broke the camals back for me was Rev Ted Haggard. I didn't know much about him except that he was very big in the Church. When he fell like he did I finally said to myself "THAT IS ENOUGH!" I began to read articles critical of the bible and saw that my past concerns were also the concerns of others. I started reading books about how the bible was written and the various problems with the ressurection accounts. My eyes seemed to be open for the first time. I saw the problems with creation science and began reading books on evolution for the first time with fresh eyes. I felt like I had been in prison for many years and that my learning was very very far behind. I loaded up with science books and read many articles questioning the bible. I read testimonies of former Christians who believed exactly like I did and saw that they truly believed the bible at the time but had the same questions that I did. I also found your web site and read every article and at that point I began to feel a great relief in my very essence.

I then promised myself that I would examine the evidence fully and then decide if the bible is truly the Word of God or not. If it is, then it must be fully followed without question. If not then I cast it away.

Today, December 31st, 2006 I am making the following declaration:

I have studied the evidence and have come to the conclusion that

1. The bible is not the Word of God. It was written by man at various periods.

2. Jesus is not God, or Christ or anything. If he existed he was just a man.

3. God does not exist.

That is my story in short. I plan on writing a much longer version later when I finally get things settled in my mind. I just wanted to declare before the new year starts that I am no longer a Christian in any sense of the word.

Neil

Houston, Texas

I am glad that this writer experienced a relief in his very essence. His story is typical of what many have experienced.

What about the trinity?

2007-01-30T20:37:00.000-05:00

Here is another email I received:

I wonder if you have considered the trinity in light of the anthropomorphic nature of religion and politics previous to and concurrent with biblical times. In short wouldn't this place Jesus, if he did exist, on a par with the Roman Emperors, self declared gods incarnate? The experience of the Jews, in all the societies in which they lived, was of gods that could incarnate at will and walk the earth with the common man. Here, in Jesus, was a God incarnate who, unlike the emperor, was a man of the people,a man for the people.

Yes, when you consider the times, it was not that unusual for a man to be considered God incarnate. As you mentioned, Roman emporers made that claim. What is unusual is for Christians to accept this view, while carrying the Old Testament that says there is one God. Of course many accept the idea of 3 beings that are all God, but think that the concept of the trinity explains it. I discuss that issue at 3 Gods?

Another Challenge to my Site

2007-01-16T20:06:00.000-05:00

Here are portions of another email I received, defending the Bible and opposing my site. The writer begins with an interesting take on science:

You can tell us about light reaching the earth at the rate of speed that in some way you believe makes your theories disprove those of the bible. Since the so called big bang theory which i believe was Gods original creation of our universe, since then the universe has been constantly expanding. The light was already there and the distance to travel was closer to the original point of entry and some of those are actually moving away from us, and others with us.,some reflecting from other bodies such as the moons reflection of the sun.. The expansion of the universe along with the enormous black hole that was created also would bend and transverse all areas. And light that reached the earth would not necessarily have to travel far since expansion of the universe is still moving all things out at a terrific rate of speed, and also the expansion of the black holes which accellerate all matter and anti matter to speeds that cannot be measured. And what about light from stars that exploded before we arrived or could record the event. , the light is still coming. How fast does a small atomic blast spread, and how fast would it spread if in a vacuam and with black hole accelleration and warpage and an uncomprehensible size.with no original gravity from other universes and constellations to slow that growth and expansion.. So much for Science

So much for science? Some might suggest that this paragraph doesn't even begin to cover real science.

How do I begin to unravel the errors here? First, how can you say that the light was already there when the stars were created? The light contains information about the stars from which it came. Was that information ingrained in the starlight to make it look like it came from those stars, even though it hadn't? Wouldn't that be deceptive?

And yes, stars are moving outward, but that does not solve the problem that the light we see came from stars that were millions of light-years away when the light left the stars. And the light shows that the stars were very far away from us at that time.

Hell can scientists bring a man back from death after 4 days.

Nope. But science can develop the technology to give you a computer which allows you to get on the Internet and attack science. You know. if science hadn't done that, you wouldn't be here attacking science, would you?

Did it ever occur to you that you might be cutting off the branch you are sitting on?

Anything one Scientist says can be explained away entirely with a little thought.

Uh, and which scientist are you referring to , whose every word can be explained away entirely with a little thought?

Or are you condemning all scientists? If so, please explain away Isaac Newton's Principia with a little thought. I would be interested in hearing you explain that one away.

about these fossils and such. Science still has not proven that humans came from other species as in evolution, in fact they are completely at a loss in DNA mapping and fossil studies. Now they are telling us that aliens from outer space may have created mankind .

Scientists are at a complete loss in DNA mapping? Really? Why is it that we can find the spot in the human genome where two of an ape's genes were joined together to make the human gene? Can you explain that? That is one of the many ways that DNA mapping verifies evolution.

And please show me one respectable scientists that says aliens made humans. Where in the heck are you getting this stuff?

Our Scientists are only human and many of our best cant perform some simple tasks, but can offer baffling explanations to get noteriety or sell a book.

Many of our best scientists cannot perform simple tasks? My you go to extremes to attack science. Can you prove this statement? How do you know it is true?

There are some obviously fabricated lies even on the Discovery channel. I have even responded to their program about one of their shows, and caused them to remove the program. They removed it because they knew they would lose credibility in their programming. Funny thing is they even called me with an apology. I told them to apologize to the people who watch, but that never happened.

Oh, so your search for science has taken you all the way to the Discovery channel?

I think I may have found part of the problem with what you write.

If you want to learn about science, you will need to move beyond the Discovery channel. I would recommend you turn to the writings of scientists themselves.

I can buy books to tell me how to do anything, but most are total garbage and I end up doing it another way.

You end up doing it your way, and ignore what the books say? Somehow, I am not surprised.

Is it possible that your willingness to write off the ideas of others is preventing you from expanding your horizons?

Yes we may look like descendants of apes but it doesnt mean Mom and Dad were apes.

Ah, but what about all of the fossils that have been found intermediate between humans and apes? Don't they indicate something?

Now they say birds may have descended from Dinosaurs, yes the got real tiny and sprouted wings?.

Uh, some dinosaurs were small. And no, they didn't spout wings. Have you ever studied the structure of the wing of a bird? Amazingly, it resembles the forelimb of a dinosaur. Can you explain that? Could it be that the reason for this is that the dinosaurs' forelimb evolved into a wing?

Yeah this is from Sceintists who tell us they can prove chocolate is bad, then no, now its good for us. Take these pills proven to keep you from heart disease but give you an aneurism which stops your heart.

Okay, now you turn to attacking nutritionists, medicine, and pharmacology? You sure have unleashed a broad based attack on science.

Surely you must be aware that science and medicine have made tremendous advances in the last 200 years. Could it be that, although medicine has had some setbacks, that the advances in modern medicine far exceed the setbacks?

Then we find that if we ate fish twice a week and got off my butt it would accomplish better cure for the problem. at least for me it has. Hey thats a diet used in the bible, better than the doctors cure for me. Isnt it strange that the bibles words about food are still the most healthy.

Uh, but the Bible also encourages the eating of beef, which is not very healthy.

And when you talk about the old testament you need to realize that many of those laws were created for the Isrealites who were in need of strict law. And these same laws were nailed to the cross with Jesus.

Hmm. So the Israelites needed a strict law? Why? Were they not human just like you and me? And don't humans work better when not restricted by strict laws? So why did they need a law forbidding people to wear mixed fabrics or to work on Saturday?

If these laws were later nailed to the cross, why were such strict laws given out in the first place?

And as The New Testament states in so many places we are not bound by most of those laws. [Jesus] dispelled many of their laws and rulings in the old testament.

What about the New Testament verses that say we need to keep the law?

And if most of those laws have been obsoleted, which of them have been dispelled and which have not?

You claim to have read every line in the bible numerous times but I guess you cant see the forest for the trees. So what if every line in the bible were not perfect, or even the printer may spell some wrong, or even leave some pages out accidentally. How many places are most things explained frequently, and where is there a better guide anywhere to living.

Ah, so you admit the Bible may not be perfect? I agree. So let's discuss which verses might be in error.

Where is a better guide for living? How about the Humanist Manifesto? Many agree with me that it is a better moral guide.

Read history before Christ. The strongest dominated the weak . Seventy five percent of the world were treated as slaves.Unwanted children were killed or fed to animals regularly. Babies were sacrificed to pagan gods. Children born with defects were commonly killed or disposed of. Do you have any defects?. There were no morals and people lived like animals, could do whatever they pleased, take your property, kill you , steal your wife and children.

Uh, actually Greek and Roman civilizations had some high standards of human decency before Christ. And the advances that have been made by civilization can be attributed to many causes, not just the life of one man.

Even the Isrealites killed their people for breaking the commandments. Work on the sabbath, they killed you, steal a mans property or wife, they could kill you or beat you until you were a vegatable.

Uh, yes, and the Bible told the Israelites to kill a person who worked on the sabbath. That is the problem with your book. It commands things that you apparently consider to be wrong.

Pestilance and disease killed whole cultures because of lack of cleanliness, and sex with animals, and many partners, and lack of morality which leads to more disease. There was no charity , no respect for life, no hospitols. Much of the non Christian world still live like savages , with no respect for life, women, children, disease and more. Hospitols and nursing were founded by Christians.

Well, yes, disease killed many until modern science developed many cures. It would seem to me that science should take the credit for overcoming diseases.

And hospitals are primarily funded by secular governments, not by Christians only.

It is irrefutable that Chritianity is responsible for modern science.

How so? Much of the foundation of modern science was laid out by Greeks, Chinese, and Arabs, who were not Christians. It seems to me that people of many religions have contributed to science.

All and every branch of Science was developed by a practicing Christian.

That depends how you define branches of science. Much of science began outside of Christian lands. Yes, there was a period when science grew most rapidly among Christian Europeans, but there were other factors--such as plenty of food and leisure time-- that probably contributed more to Europeans' success than their religion.

The greatest litirature, the greatest art, the most beautiful architecture , the rules of law, government, The Constitution, our money ,
Can you honestly believe that Christ has not influenced every aspect of our life. I shudder to think what the world would be like if he had not been born.

There have been many influences on culture besides just Christ.

And I believe now that many are denying God we will see a faster decline in our way of life.

But in many ways life today is so much better than life in the past. Slavery and oppression of women have been largely eliminated in many countries.

Are you sure society is in decline?

You are one of our generation that has been affected by Jesus even if angry or in denial of him.

Angry? Gosh, what makes you think I am angry?

In denial? How can I be in denial when I was driven to my new view by the weight of the evidence?

I know the power of prayer as it works for me because i have been to that door numerous times.

And has the power of prayer delivered results that are better than chance? If you think so, how do you know this to be so?

The death of Judas

2007-01-15T20:29:00.000-05:00

By popular demand, let's talk about the death of Judas. The conflict between Matthew and Acts is well known:

Matthew says:

Mt.27:5 And he [Judas] threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.

But Acts says:

Acts 1:18 Now this man [Judas] acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

The verses indicate that Judas died in two incompatible ways.

In another thread, "Honey" argues that Acts 1:18 is not referring to Judas's death, but that the verse takes place after his death. I think that is a very unnatural interpretation of Acts 1:18. If the author was intending to convey that thought, could he not have expressed himself more clearly? After all, we have seen on this blog where Pastor Al thought this verse is referring to Judas's death. If the writer of Acts wanted Pastor Al to understand that Judas was dead before this verse, why didn't he make it clear so Pastor Al and I would understand it correctly?

Let's look at the verse. First we find that Judas acquired a field. Honey has argued that this event could have occurred after his death, and it could have been the high Priests who did the purchasing, acting as executors for Judas's estate. Well, yes, that could have been, but what an odd choice of words for the author to use. Why didn't the writer of Acts say Judas's executor's obtained the field for Judas? Whenever such transactions are done, it is usually said that the executor buys it for the estate, not that the dead man buys it. I challenge Honey to find one document anywhere where it tells us that a person executed a financial transaction without clearly telling us that the person was dead when the transaction occurred. So I find it extremely doubtful that the author intended us to understand this verse as meaning that Judas was dead when the transaction occurred in his name.

Moving on, Acts immediately tells us that this Judas (who had just acquired a field) fell headlong and his guts burst out. Surely if Judas had died between the financial transaction and this headlong fall, the author would have told us so. And Honey seems to agree that Judas did not die in the middle of verse 18. So we can write that explanation off as unlikely.

So it seems that, according to Acts, Judas was alive at the beginning of the verse, and was alive up until the fall. But even if Honey insists that Judas could have been dead several days before "falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out," this is a most unusual way of saying that. If people come across a body that had been dead for several days, it is invariably referred to as a dead person. Again, I challenge Honey to find any passage in literature where a dead person is referred to as a "he" doing something, without making it clear that the person of interest is dead.

So yes, of course, it is remotely possible that the writer of Acts meant to say that Judas was dead before Acts 1:18, and used extremely unclear words to express that thought. But a much more likely interpretation is that the writer of Acts thought Judas died as described in verse 18. As such, the verse contradicts Matthew.

You decide: Is it really feasible that the author intends Acts 1:18 to say, "Now this [dead] man['s estate] acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong [after he had been dead for a while] , he [or, more accurately, his body] burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out"? I doubt very much if this is the intended meaning of this verse.

Honey may be quite happy to find a possible solution to the problem, even if it is very unlikely. But remember, in order to prove the Bible flawless, she would need to find many similarly unlikely solutions for other conflicts in the Bible. If one must choose between hundreds of unlikely interpretations for each contradiction, or believe that the Bible is errant, is it not more likely that the Bible is errant?

David and Solomon (and Judas)

2006-12-29T15:13:00.000-05:00

Recently I have read the book, David and Solomon, having had my curiosity aroused by the discussion here with "Honey". It is an interesting book, putting together archeology, history, and the Bible to discuss the story of David and Solomon.

The authors see that David and Solomon may well have been real men who started a dynasty known as the House of David, but the actual events of their lives must have been very different from that recorded in the Bible.

Archeology shows that Jerusalem and the surrounding areas were only sparsely inhabited by a few herders and farmers in the time of David. Archeology has found many remains at Jerusalem from earlier times (before 1550 BCE) and from later times (after 750 BCE), but very little from the reported time of David and Solomon (1010-930 BCE). This indicates that Jerusalem in the time of Solomon was far from being the capital of a mighty empire from Egypt to the Euphrates as indicated in the Bible.

The book portrays the historical David as a bandit leader in the Jerusalem area, with a small group of men. David's bandits would have served partially to protect the people of the area, and would have been a nuisance to rich, established people in surrounding areas. In the meantime, it appears that the area of Benjamin north of the Jerusalem area was fairly prosperous. This may be the source of the story of King Saul, who ruled in the north, and ended up chasing the bandit David. But Saul's kingdom was destroyed by Egypt, perhaps with the aid of the Philistines and even David. The kingdom around Jerusalem survived, and could have come to be ruled by David, thus establishing the House of David.

But all of this happened before writing was established in the area, so the stories were only passed down by word of mouth. Later the stories were recorded, and later events could have then been incorporated into the stories, eventually leading to the record as we know it today.

It is an interesting read, although nobody knows exactly what happened. In any case, actual history appears to be much different from that recorded in the Bible.

-------

(I have renamed this post, since many of the comments below are about Judas, not about David and Solomon.)

Going Free without Going Wild

2006-12-29T07:20:00.000-05:00

Here is another email from a person that moved beyond fundamentalism:

I cannot even begin to tell you how much your story is like mine. However, I went straight from being a fundy to an outright agnostic or theist. I have been bothered by religious concepts for so many years, and trying to live a secluded life without people outside the small church I attend is mentally destructive. I said and did some really crazy things. People probably thought I was just cold or crazy because I really wanted to break away for a long time (I knew something was not right), but my low self-esteem from my religious ideology just kept me down. I think I can stand on my own two feet now and face the world the way it is.

You have to admit though, fundies are better off in at least one respect: they are taught to read their Bibles. More liberal Christians never do this, so even though they don’t have such an oppressive lifestyle, they will still do stupid things like pay tithes and waste their time and money on Christian books and/or counseling without ever knowing their beliefs. A lot of marriages will end in divorce (and considerable guilt) for these liberal Christians because they think that God actually has something to do with the marriage when they start, but they will never see that the success of the marriage is all up to them to begin with and the tough times don’t call for extra prayer or church dogma. At least fundies have a chance to examine their beliefs, and with a little help from some external stimulus, maybe they will someday question their belief and will free themselves from the horrible mental stranglehold called religion. I just hope that people realize that they shouldn’t go wild or crazy after they cast off their yoke; I hope they go looking for the truth and see what works best for society and themselves (e.g. humanism).

I too hope that those who examine their beliefs move on to something better, and do not simply go wild when they start to question their beliefs.

The Timing of Salvation

2006-12-29T07:07:00.000-05:00

Anonymous writes, questioning a plan of salvation that could not possibly have helped until that message had time to reach other lands. He is right. Unless there is a way for us to find hope without believing certain facts about Jesus, then many who lived have never been given a chance. He writes:

Consider the following:

You are a person living in North America around 30 AD. Jesus has just died on the cross and risen again. For that matter, let’s say he’s already ascended into heaven and the 11 apostles have been given their mission. Now, let’s say the guy living in North America dies almost immediately after this event. Thus, it is IMPOSSIBLE for any missionary in any possible way to ever have reached this person. In addition, the guy had no idea of the OT laws, since there were no Jews in North America . Is this person going to hell even though it is IMPOSSIBLE (not just inconvenient) for him to know about Jesus? I find this hard to believe, but maybe you have something to add.

The issue is really about the timing of salvation. Several preachers press the urgency of believing NOW because you may not get the chance later, but the guy in North America never got the chance. Also, why did God wait so long before providing the sacrifice for sins? Why did he not do it immediately after Adam and Eve sinned or after the flood around Noah’s time so that we wouldn’t have the problem with the guy in North America . Why do people have to be told they are a sinner with scriptures several years later? Why couldn’t God just come down after Noah’s flood, tell them they made him mad by basically being alive, send his Son to die for everyone’s sin, and leave it at that? For that matter, why did he have to destroy mankind with a flood? Why couldn’t he just send his Son then so that those people could be redeemed without being drowned? Going back even further, why did he have to punish Adam and Eve to begin with? Couldn’t he just let Eve or maybe one of her daughters have his Son so that everything could be made right immediately and everyone could live happily ever after?

This also brings up the question of why did Jesus have to be killed by the Jews? Couldn’t God just do the tormenting himself without involving mankind? After all, he expected Abraham to kill his son (which he seemed more than willing to do); can’t God get his hands dirty without involving people?

One finds it hard to believe that God would have designed salvation so restrictively that so many people never had a chance. These are good questions.

What About All of Those Smart Guys Who Believed?

2006-12-28T08:36:00.000-05:00

I have shown at this site why I do not believe everything in the Bible. "Ah", some will tell me, "I know a lot of smart guys, and they all believe the Bible." Every week they see the ushers at church, all outstanding men in the community, dutifully doing their service because they believe the Bible. And they see the pastor and deacons, all of whom are outstanding men and very smart, and all agree with the doctrinal statement of the church. How can one even suggest that any point of that doctrine might be wrong, when there are so many smart people who support it? (Click here for more, including why I do not agree with Honey's argument by quoting past scientists.)

In Defense of Science

2006-12-16T04:17:00.000-05:00

"Honey" continues her defense of Answers in Genesis (AiG) at my blog. Instead of concentrating on specific claims of that group, she has chosen instead to deliver a broadside attack against the validity of mainstream science in general. I respond once more in defence of mainstream science. (Click here to read more.)

Did David Exist?

2006-12-11T21:02:00.000-05:00

Did David exist as a powerful king? "Honey" is quite sure that he did, but archeology seems to indicate that, if he did exist, he was a marginal leader of a small tribe, who had little of the glory attributed to him. Click here to read more.

Was David Alone?

2006-12-07T12:06:00.001-05:00

At my site, I mention many of the contradictions in the Bible. In one place the Bible says Judas hanged himself, but another place indicates he fell headfirst to his death. One passage claims Jacob was Joseph's father, but another says it was Eli. One passage says it is okay to divorce an unchaste partner, and another forbids it. (See Is the Bible Perfect?) Many of us have concluded that the Bible has errors.

On this blog Honey has chosen to challenge one of those contradictions: I Samuel says David was alone when he asked the priest for holy bread, but Matthew says he had companions. Honey has been trying to argue that I Samuel could be interpreted as saying that David was with companions. Let's read the passage and see what it says. The story begins after David flees his house in the middle of the night when he hears that King Saul's men are coming to kill him. Clearly David was alone when he fled, and we can see that he was alone leading up to his visit with the priest.

1And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life?
2And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so.
3And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved: but truly as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death.
4Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.
5And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, to morrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat: but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even.
6If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem his city: for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family.
7If he say thus, It is well; thy servant shall have peace: but if he be very wroth, then be sure that evil is determined by him.
8Therefore thou shalt deal kindly with thy servant; for thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of the LORD with thee: notwithstanding, if there be in me iniquity, slay me thyself; for why shouldest thou bring me to thy father?
9And Jonathan said, Far be it from thee: for if I knew certainly that evil were determined by my father to come upon thee, then would not I tell it thee?
10Then said David to Jonathan, Who shall tell me? or what if thy father answer thee roughly?
11And Jonathan said unto David, Come, and let us [Jonathon and David only] go out into the field. And they went out both of them into the field.
12And Jonathan said unto David, O LORD God of Israel, when I have sounded my father about to morrow any time, or the third day, and, behold, if there be good toward David, and I then send not unto thee, and shew it thee;
13The LORD do so and much more to Jonathan: but if it please my father to do thee evil, then I will shew it thee, and send thee away, that thou mayest go in peace: and the LORD be with thee, as he hath been with my father.
14And thou shalt not only while yet I live shew me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not:
15But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever: no, not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth.
16So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the LORD even require it at the hand of David's enemies.
17And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.
18Then Jonathan said to David, To morrow is the new moon: and thou shalt be missed, because thy seat will be empty.
19And when thou hast stayed three days, then thou shalt go down quickly, and come to the place where thou didst hide thyself when the business was in hand, and shalt remain by the stone Ezel.
20And I will shoot three arrows on the side thereof, as though I shot at a mark.
21And, behold, I will send a lad, saying, Go, find out the arrows. If I expressly say unto the lad, Behold, the arrows are on this side of thee, take them; then come thou: for there is peace to thee, and no hurt; as the LORD liveth.
22But if I say thus unto the young man, Behold, the arrows are beyond thee; go thy way: for the LORD hath sent thee away.
23And as touching the matter which thou and I have spoken of, behold, the LORD be between thee and me for ever.
24So David hid himself in the field: and when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat meat.
25And the king sat upon his seat, as at other times, even upon a seat by the wall: and Jonathan arose, and Abner sat by Saul's side, and David's place was empty.
26Nevertheless Saul spake not any thing that day: for he thought, Something hath befallen him, he is not clean; surely he is not clean.
27And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that David's place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday, nor to day?
28And Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem:
29And he said, Let me go, I pray thee; for our family hath a sacrifice in the city; and my brother, he hath commanded me to be there: and now, if I have found favour in thine eyes, let me get away, I pray thee, and see my brethren. Therefore he cometh not unto the king's table.
30Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?
31For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.
32And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done?
33And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David.
34So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month: for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.
35And it came to pass in the morning, that Jonathan went out into the field at the time appointed with David, and a little lad with him.
36And he said unto his lad, Run, find out now the arrows which I shoot. And as the lad ran, he shot an arrow beyond him.
37And when the lad was come to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan cried after the lad, and said, Is not the arrow beyond thee?
38And Jonathan cried after the lad, Make speed, haste, stay not. And Jonathan's lad gathered up the arrows, and came to his master.
39But the lad knew not any thing: only Jonathan and David knew the matter.
40And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry them to the city.
41And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
42And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.
21:1Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?

How can it be more clear? David was alone. While he was in hiding he talked only with Jonathon. It was only David that was noticed to be missing, and not any of his men. The lad with Jonathon was not even allowed to see David, for David was hiding from everyone. I have heard this story many times in Sunday School, and never once was it said that there were other people hiding along with David. Never once was it suggested that all these men in hiding then came together and ran off together. Honey seems to think that those who do not agree with her interpretation of this passage are deceitful. Were all my Sunday School teachers deceitful?

Honey argues that David had to be with companions, for Saul would have known he was lying about the trip to Bethlehem if his companions weren't with him. But surely David would have been allowed to go to his own home--only 10 miles away--without requiring companions to be with him. And if David thought his lie about going to Bethlehem would raise too much suspician unless his men were missing, he could have had Jonathon ask some of his men to go into hiding to make the story more believable. The last thing he would have done is tell Jonathon to bring those people to him. After all, he was a fugitive from the king, and they were the king's men! If David wouldn't even trust the lad that was with his best friend, why would he trust the king's soldiers?

Nowhere does this passage say anything about men being in hiding with David, or meeting up with him to run away from Saul. Let's read on.

2 So David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has ordered me on some business, and said to me, ‘Do not let anyone know anything about the business on which I send you, or what I have commanded you.’ And I have directed my young men to such and such a place. 3 Now therefore, what have you on hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my hand, or whatever can be found.” 4 And the priest answered David and said, “There is no common bread on hand; but there is holy bread, if the young men have at least kept themselves from women.” 5 Then David answered the priest, and said to him, “Truly, women have been kept from us about three days since I came out. And the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in effect common, even though it was consecrated in the vessel this day.” 6 So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread which had been taken from before the LORD, in order to put hot bread in its place on the day when it was taken away.

Now clearly David was lying here. The King had not ordered him on any business. He was a fugitive, and was running from the King. Clearly this is a lie, and was said only to keep the priest from being suspicious.

7 Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the LORD. And his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chief of the herdsmen who belonged to Saul. 8 And David said to Ahimelech, “Is there not here on hand a spear or a sword? For I have brought neither my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king’s business required haste.” 9 So the priest said, “The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the Valley of Elah, there it is, wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. If you will take that, take it. For there is no other except that one here.” And David said, “There is none like it; give it to me.”

Once more we find David alone, and he has no weapon. Now if he had a number of companions from the King's army, they would have brought along plenty of weapons. There would be no neead to rouse suspician with his ridiculous story that he left so hastily he didn't have time to get a weapon. But David knows he needs a weapon, for he is alone and unarmed.

10 Then David arose and fled that day from before Saul, and went to Achish the king of Gath. 11 And the servants of Achish said to him, “Is this not David the king of the land? Did they not sing of him to one another in dances, saying: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, And David his ten thousands’?”12 Now David took these words to heart, and was very much afraid of Achish the king of Gath. 13 So he changed his behavior before them, pretended madness in their hands, scratched on the doors of the gate, and let his saliva fall down on his beard. 14 Then Achish said to his servants, “Look, you see the man is insane. Why have you brought him to me? 15 Have I need of madmen, that you have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence? Shall this fellow come into my house?”

This story makes no sense at all if David was surrounded by traveling companions from Saul's army. What did they all do when David pretended to be mad? Did they all put on an act? Were dozens of men dribbling saliva down their beards? Why didn't the Bible mention that group comedy? But if instead the others that were along were acting sanely, why didn't Achish address them? Why does Achish refer only to the madman, without noticing all the sane men around him? Surely David was alone.

22:1 David therefore departed from there and escaped to the cave of Adullam. So when his brothers and all his father’s house heard it, they went down there to him. 2 And everyone who was in distress, everyone who was in debt, and everyone who was discontented gathered to him. So he became captain over them. And there were about four hundred men with him.

OK! We finally read of people joining up with David. But this is long after the incident with the priest. Why does the Bible mention these men joining David, but fail to mention the others that had joined David earlier? Once more, if there were people with David when these others joined, why doesn't this passage mention them?

Now let's contrast this with Mt.12:3-4:

But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?"

Now here Matthew says they can read that David and his companions ate the holy bread. But we cannot read that, at least not in the Old Testament we have today. Even if Honey tries to claim it is possible that somebody could have joined up with David to eat the bread, that does not solve the contradiction. For Mathew says people can read about these others eating the holy bread with David.

Now let's look at some of Honey's comments:

Actually Merle, it would be deceitful of you to just claim errors with no substantiation. Really the onus is on you to support your claim.

I have many pages of substantiation for my claims on the web. How can she pretend otherwise?

And God demonstrates and even states, that He does not write to be easily understood by the masses, but by those who lean on Him for understanding. Proverbs 25:2It is the glory of God to conceal a matter.Luke 8:10He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, " 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.

That's odd. One would think God would want to write for the masses to understand.

I find it odd that one would use parables for the specific purpose of making his point difficult to understand. Most people add illustrations to their speeches to make it easier for people to understand. Why would one add illustrations for the purpoes of confusing people?

David was a man after God’s own heart. 1 Samuel 13:14 Is it likely a man after God’s own heart would up and lie to the priest of God? I think not, so there must be another explanation.

Well, David lied when he said he went to Bethlehem, and he was surely lying here when he said that he was on the king's business. You may quote from the Psalms to prove David was honest, but, of course, there is no real proof that these psalms actually came from David, so that really doesn't tell us much. Even if David did write that lying is evil, that does not say he did not lie in this instance. Many people don't practice what they preach. And besides, even a person who thought lying was generally evil might see that lying was excusable in this case, when David was fleeing for his life from a wicked king. Most good people can see that a lie in such circumstances might be acceptable

Later David is reported to have sinned so horribly against God that God killed 70,000 men because of his sin. (2 Samuel 24). If David could do that, I can understand that he might also tell a lie.

Throughout David’s life the Bible records David as seeking out the Lord’s direction. So instead of his reply to the priest being a lie, he was in fact following the instructions of his ‘Supreme King.’, God.

Uh, if David, in direct response to a question about the King Saul's men, said that the king ordered him on some secret business, then in context that should clearly be understood as referring to King Saul. If he deliberately used the word "king" here but actually means it to refer to God, then David is deliberately wording his remarks to be deceptive. That is the same thing as lying.

The whole point is that David was a man who was expected to have men traveling with him at all times, which the text indicates. If he was not to alert his enemy that he was in hiding and had not gone to Bethlehem as was the claim, then his men would need to be missing from their base post. If Saul (the enemy) could see that all David’s entourage of men were accounted for and that none had traveled with David, then Saul would be alerted to the fact that David had not gone to Bethlehem as claimed but was on the run.

The whole idea that this proves others were hiding with David seems silly to me. For Saul to recongnize that none of David's 1000 men were with David, he would have had to gather them all together and count them. When he heard that David was gone, I doubt very much if he would have counted all David's men, and then concluded, that since none were found missing, that David must not have gone to Bethlehem. I can't see how anyone can use this argument to prove that David was not alone.

And if Saul was indeed in the habit of counting David's men when David said he was gone, then it would have been easy for some of those men to simply have hid from Saul without actually being with David. This in no way proves that these men were now with David.

Some explanation needs to be given as to how his family knew his whereabouts when he was hiding.

Very simple. People relied on word of mouth in those days. Travelers would share stories with everybody they met. (After all, they didn't have telephone or television, but they still had "telawoman", so messages still spread.) David was a very famous man. If he was known to be in Adullum, word soon spread to his family.

But look at 1 Samuel 19:8‘Once more war broke out, and David went out and fought the Philistines. He struck them with such force that they fled before him.’I guess that means he went out single handedly and fought them huh?

No, of course not. When a man is a general, and it is said that he fought a battle, it is universally understood that it means he and his men fought. But when a man runs away alone in the middle of the night, and is acting as a fugitive, and it is never mentioned that anybody joined up with him, then it is obvious this person is alone.

For more information, see What Men with David?

Read Any Good Books Lately?

2006-12-04T16:48:00.000-05:00

Would you like to buy a book for your inner skeptic this holiday season? Check out my books pages, which have been overhauled.

The Meaning of Life

2006-12-02T11:45:00.000-05:00

Someday the Sun will burn out, and the solar system as we know it will be gone. Perhaps humans of the future will survive for a few more million years by moving to another star where they will find another planet. But someday even that will be gone. The whole universe will degenerate into a thermodynamic blandness that will make all intelligent life impossible. All that we built here on earth will be seen no more. None of our descendents will be around. Civilization will perish. Some people would say that life therefore has no meaning, but I disagree.

See The Meaning of Life for more.

Can We Trust Science?

2006-11-23T02:51:00.000-05:00

"Honey" left a comment arguing for the validity of the Answers in Genesis (AiG) site, and condeming mainstream science. Her comment deserves a detailed response, which I present here.

Why not try Allah?

2006-11-15T20:40:00.000-05:00

Here is another email from my inbox, recommending that I try Islam.

I am a Muslim woman and, thanks be to God, now am a practising Muslim, though earlier I saw Islam just like you or any one else would. Contrary to popular belief Islam believes in logic and reasoning because faith without logic is blind, and blind faith is the most disastrous on thing on earth. Today I am a person who believes in the reality of the true message of Islam and that Islam is not just another religion but the true message of God Almighty. But I came this far only because of questioning, which in turn strengthened my faith. Prophet Muhammad, may Allah be pleased with him, put it like this "Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every single Muslim. Ponder, investigate and explore into the things created by God. Verily the ink of the scholar is more precious than the blood of the martyr. Surely the scientist is on the correct way the way of God. Any of you who strives to recieve knowledge for him GOD WILL MAKE EASIER THE WAY TOWARDS HEAVEN and God will elavate them aloof of their kind."

I can prove to you in the very best and convincing ways of what is the truth and what is falsehood. Take this as an open challenge and do agree to reason and debate with me in the best of ways.

May God Almighty show you the straight path, the path of those whom he has favoured not of those who have earned his anger and have gone astray.

This sounds remarkably like the pleas made by many Christians. Subsititute a few words in the email above, and it would look like many emails promoting another faith. Christians are not the only ones claiming that logic is on their side.

My guess is that Pastor Al will be able to see right through this woman's claims, and could explain to us why Islam is not backed by science. And no doubt this writer could explain why Pastor Al is not backed by the facts. Could it be that neither of those claims of truth are backed by the facts?

When God doesn't quell the doubts

2006-11-15T20:26:00.001-05:00

A new deconvert describes her experience:

I was raised in a Christian home and except for a short time in my 20s, I have always gone to church and considered myself a Christian.

When I began questioning my faith a few months ago, albeit in the quiet of my mind, years ago, I felt like I was going crazy or perhaps possessed by a demon. When God failed to answer my prayers and quell my doubts, I was devastated and frightened. I felt lonelier than I have ever been, even with a husband and children and many friends.

I decided to do some searching on the Internet and there you were. I just want to thank you for your web site. It has answered many questions and encouraged me so much. I still feel very lonely and sometimes afraid, but I don't feel like I'm crazy or possessed anymore and that's partially because of you.

I haven't "come out," to anyone yet, but I have more confidence in my quest for the truth. I don't look forward to what will take place when I finally start sharing my discoveries, but I know I will have to eventually; but like you said, I'm not a loser and I will be okay...thank you for that.

Many can identify with the writer. It is not madness to ask questions. The child who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes was not crazy. There is nothing wrong with exploring beyond the religion they you were taught. Sometimes it is like a breath of fresh air to honestly face the doubts.

Evolution debate

2006-11-13T03:10:00.000-05:00

I have posted my recent discussion on evolution with Pastor Al on my site at A Debate on Evolution. I include some concluding comments at Conclusion.

Hearing God?

2006-11-12T10:51:00.000-05:00

A reader writes about a breakthrough in hearing God, recommending a site where I can learn more about it. The site comes complete with a voice recording. Unfortunately, the voice on the recording is not God, but just a man. What a pity. Since posting a recording on the Internet is such an effective means of communication, one would wonder why God wouldn't put up his own site with recordings for us to hear. Apparently that is not the way God speaks.

I was searching online to get more information on hearing God and found your article on a Christian Forum site... I understand your frustration in hearing God and I also for a long time struggled with this. It makes only sense to start questioning everything one believes when even struggling to commune with Him.

I must say, I got a lot of breakthrough and often do hear Him now. A site which helped me was www.cwgministries.org - If you still want to hear God maybe listen to the "4 Keyes to hearing God" MP3... here http://www.cluonline.com/godsvoice.htm

Its really interesting. I always struggled with people saying that they could hear God. Until I started hearing him. Its almost like fine-tuning a radio... sometimes you get a bit of white-noise or static, but as you tune it in on a certain frequency it becomes more and more clear. The same way I learned to tune in more and more to God - trust me - its worth it. As someone who also used to struggle a lot I want you to encourage to never stop trying. As you say on your website... "The important thing is to not stop questioning" I want to encourage you to not stop listening.

We are told at that site that God speaks spontaneously in our thoughts when we quiet our minds, but does not speak with an audible voice. Now I am all for quieting our minds, and taking the time to relax and to see what is inside. But when we assume that such "voices" are from God, it would appear to me to be very dangerous. What if the voice told you to paint graffiti on your neighbor's car or to buy a house way beyond your means. Would you do it? Or would you let reason override the inner voice? If so, then I would think we should concentrate on our critical thinking and reasoning skills, rather than our voice-hearing skills.

Some might tell me that God never says unreasonable things. Perhaps, but how do you know the voice you hear is God? Surely at least some people are mistaken when they think they hear God. A Catholic may "hear" God telling him to promote Catholicism. A Protestant may "hear" God telling him to destroy what the Catholic is building. Did both hear from God? Then God is the author of strife and confusion. Or is at least one of those people mistaken? If we admit that many are mistaken when they think they hear God, how could we be certain we really hear God? See Does God Speak to Us?

Answers in Genesis?

2006-11-05T14:09:00.000-05:00

Recently I have received 2 emails recommending that I check out the Answers in Genesis site. I am quite familiar with that organization, having once been a big supporter of them when I was a creationist. They have an impresive website, with lots of scientific-looking arguments defending young earth creation. But we must be careful not to confuse scientific-looking arguments with science. There is a big diffference.

Science is based on the process of peer-review, in which those who are most familiar with the arguments review the claim before it is published. And after the claim is published, scientists who dispute the findings test the claim. If the claim withstands scrutiny, it is accepted as science. If further study shows the claim does not hold up, the idea is put aside.

But the arguments at Answers in Genesis bypass this process. Mainstream scientists have shown repeatedly that the claims of a young earth and of a global flood causing most of the fossil record are false. Creationists continue to publish their ideas, directing their writings to the general public, even though the claims would never pass the scrutinty of science. True science must first convince those who understand the arguments before it is paraded before the masses as science.

Sadly, many look at the impressive arguments at that site, and are not aware that these are not science.

SH writes:

I appreciate your thoroughness in your writing. I am a young Earth believer, personally converted from an old Earth believer. In your "Did we evolve" article, you mentioned the Gap theory, which never made much sense to me (or apparently to you). Anyway, please consider expanding yourinformation by going to www.answersingenesis.com. Perhaps you have already been there, but they have many well written scientific articles that will give you more information about what many current creation scientists believe. I for one am a scientist that needs the details before I come up with a conclusion and natural selection is one spot where
scientists on both sides of this debate agree. I believe that a Creator God would create many creatures well capable of changing or adapting to their environment, but I have never seen any plausible evidence of one creature gaining new information into its DNA that would make it capable of having useful new features (wings, legs, etc.). I know there is much more to this debate, butI strongly believe that you will find some very useful information on the site above.

SH says he is a scientist. Okay, I wonder if he can point us to a single scientifically valid article at that site that argues for young-earth creation.

SH understands that natural selection can produce changes, but doubts if it can yield new information. But what about bacteria, for instance, that have gained the information on how to resist new antibiotics? That seems to be a clear case of new information encoded in the DNA.

"Honey Brown" writes:

"The important thing is to not stop questioning."I believe this 100%. I question everything all the time, and it is exhausting, the amount of misinformation is infinite (I thought that was funny :-)). Here is the problem - I know there is a God. I know this surer than I know anything else in this life. I know this is the only thing I can bank. I see everything else crumble away in corruption and deception yet God is always strengthened if I take the time to look to Him. I read your web page "Did We Evolve".http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve2.html I would just like to show you a couple of pages I looked up regarding the issues you were discussing.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/reptiles.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/skull_1470.asp
I would be interested to hear your 'questioning mind' opinion on these two
articles. I'm a little scared to read through the rest of your website at the moment as I'm sure I would spend the next week in front of the computer. I've bookmarked your site and will come back and have another nibble when I have more time available.

The first article she mentions looks at the mammal-like reptiles, and argues that there are gaps in the progression. Well yes, of course there are gaps. Those animals lived a long time ago, and not all of the fossils fossilized well. The problem is that the mammal-like reptiles appear in sequence in such a way that they progressively introduce mammal traits into the record. That is strong evidence for evolution. The article does nothing to refute that fact.

The second article argues that fossil KNM-ER-1470 is not as human as some have thought. It may be true that some scientists had originally thought this fossil was closer to humans than is now believed. The specimen is now generally seen as being a little closer to the ape-ancestor in the sequence between ape-ancestor and human than was once believed. But it is still intermediate. The skull is similar to australopithecine, which is an ape that is clearly on the path to humanness. Skull KNM-ER-1470 is even more human-like than australopithecine, having a larger braincase and possessing features that are more human-like. See Human Ancestry.

I would welcome a debate with anyone who suggests that the young earth position of Answers in Genesis is valid science.

Out of Fundamentalism

2006-10-23T18:55:00.000-04:00

I have received an essay by a man who has recently come out of fundamentalism. I include his essay sharing the reason for his change in beliefs at Out of Fundamentalism.

"You only threw up your hands in the air "

2006-10-12T02:40:00.000-04:00

I received an email telling me that I have only thrown my hands up in the air.

I read your website. I understand your feelings. You encourage your readers to continue educating themselves. How about you? All of those so called discrepancies you found in the Bible, did you ever bother asking a theologian or researching for an answer? Because if you did, you would have found the answers. Instead, you only threw up your hands in the air and came to your own narrow conclusions.

He asks if I researched the matter, and then declares authoritatively that I did not. Excuse me, but how does he know that I did not? Shouldn't he have waited for my answer before reaching his conclusion? I can assure this man that I have indeed researched the Christian answers, including reading many books, visiting a pastor, and spending many hours in debate. My conclusions are not based on giving up and accepting whatever narrow conclusions were presented to me.

How long do you think, you can remain in your own Godless world where now you are god?

Me god? Seriously? If I am god, why does this world often seem different from what I want?

In other words, after all has been said and done, you still have to contend with the condition of your heart.

And what exactly is the condition of my heart? According to the old school of Christian thought, I am a worthless sinner with nothing good inside my heart, and I need to feel shame for my rottenness. According to the new school of Christian thought, I am a worthy person needing to develop my self-esteem and start realizing my own goodness. Which of these two schools of Christian thought is this man supporting? Unless he tells me, I don't know whether he thinks I should increase my self-esteem or decrease it.

I don't mean to accuse you or judge you, I am just making a point. I once found myself as you did and there are millions of spiritually lost people in such a state.

He found himself like me? Had he at one time adopted humanism after a thorough study of the options? If so, what caused him to change his mind and abandon humanism?

And if he was a dedicated humanist that changed his mind, did he just throw his hands up in the air when he found a new philosophy, or did he study humanism diligently to see if it had answers to the challenges?

About 2 years ago, I found answers to many of your questions, emotions, reasoning, and feelings. I wrote a book about it. I also entered the christian ministry. I've been a pastor close to 2 years. I have found peace, joy, and love like I never imagined and I would like to take you into my spiritual journey (Maybe I should set up my own website). If you email me your PO box number or address, I will give you my book.

I am grateful for the offer, but perhaps he is not aware how much I have read from Christian apologetics. Perhaps if he would share one of the arguments in his book with us, we could determine if he has indeed made a new and convincing case.

I have written him an email asking him to respond to this blog entry. We will see if he can indeed provide us with a convincing argument, one that can be ignored only by those who throw their hands up in the air.

When our world view changes

2006-10-08T07:11:00.000-04:00

Sometimes we make radical changes in our world view. Sometimes we think we have life all figured out, and then we find facts that are inconsistent with our view of the world, and we find that we must look at the world in a whole new light. If this change occurs in an area in which we are deeply committed, such as religion, the effect can be devastating. A reader shares his experience.

First, I don't quite know if I should thank you, or not. Since I first happened on your site in December 2004, I have really, really changed my worldviews concerning the way I was taught. I was raised to believe in young earth creation, etc...and have spent the last two years off and on realizing that I have been utterly lied to by well-intentioned folks who were ignorant of science. The young earth view is demonstrably wrong. Since this is true, I seriously wonder what all else that I have taught is wrong.

Here we have a major change in this man's views. Sometimes mainstream scientists have difficulty understanding how drastic this change is. When one is fully convinced that the fundamentalist package, including the belief in a recent creation of the entire universe, is the one message of truth and hope in this world, the tiniest crack in this belief system can be devastating. And yet there are the realities of starlight and the fossil record that make it obvious that the earth is indeed very old. When we face that fact, suddenly the fundamentalist view is no longer seen as infallible. Could there be other problems with that view? I can understand why this man's change in view is difficult.

I am currently an old-earth creationist, who unfortunately teaches in a Baptist church school that is a fundamental young earth church. I even teach a senior high Bible class! I do not seem to experience anything miraculous, in fact, I have become quite cynical, lonely, angry, bitter, toward life in general. If I happened to die, it would be no great loss, since I don't particularly enjoy living anyway; I am a burned out teacher that kids think is great; but really, I feel that I am a fool for doing what I do for the money at a Christian school.

I pause when I read this paragraph. I do not want people to feel lonely, angry and bitter. And I certainly don't want people to feel that if they died it would be no great loss. What? Lose a mature human mind with all the knowledge, feelings, emotions and drives that make human minds such wonderful things? That would be a great loss. So how do we keep people from feeling this way? How do we prevent people from drifting into cynicism when their faith is questioned? How can we keep people from feeling like a fool.

Some would suggest that we leave well-enough alone, and not help people see where their beliefs are outdated. Should we abandon evolution, since some object to it? Should we abandon self-esteem, since some still hold to the view that we are inherently worthless with no good inside us? Should we abandon astronomy, since some still hold to a young earth? That would only be a step backwards.

Although struggling with the new ideas is tough, the end result is very refreshing. I believe this man has taken the first step to a great exuberance in his life. He has taken the time to write down his thoughts, and to indicate that they are different from the party line. He has validated his thoughts. He needs no longer subjugate his thoughts to the status quo. He has given free expression to words that differ with the way he was taught. If he continues down this road, I am quite sure that his path will lead to joy, not sorrow.

I am "serving God" who doesn't apparently care about anything in my life - I have lost almost everything that I fervently believed in - in fact, I am keeping a prayer journal, with my prayers listed in the left column with the date, the "result" listed in the right column with the date. After keeping this journal for around one year, there has not been even one prayer answered out of the 6 or so that I have been tracking.

He is putting the claims to a test, and finds the claims to be faulty.

Recently I was at a NASCAR race at which the weather forecasters predicted a chance of thunderstorms. When the day turned out to be clear, I overheard one man announce that his prayers had been answered. That's odd. Are we to believe that God ignored the prayers of millions during the Holocaust, and allowed many Christians to starve in spite of their prayers, but thought it important enough to hold the rain back from this race?

The absence of rain that day does not impress me as an answer to prayer, and it appears that the writer of this email is not impressed with it either. After all, the forecasters had only said there was a chance of rain. Our correspondant and I are looking for something a little more meaningful.

I hang on to the concept of God primarily, I think because of my job situation, and my wife and kids, but if it was me, I could easily become agnostic.

The change of views is not easy. Many hold on to the old views because of the social pressures. This man is on the right track, and needs only admit what his mind is telling him.

Okay, the real reason I wrote is because in your debate on your blog with under the heading "A New Train Has Left the Station", you state the following: "That is the point where I stop also. What caused the universe? If someone were to claim that the universe cannot exist without a creator, then how could God exist without someone to create him? It strains the credibility both to believe in a self-existing universe or a self-existing God. If we must conclude that either the universe or God was self-existing, then I find a self-existing God to be no more likely than a self-existing universe. And I leave it at that." I believe that you have committed a category error in your argument insofar as God, by His very nature, is self-existing. So to ask "Who created God?" is like asking what does the color red sound like? God, by His nature has the attribute of being self-existing, else He wouldn't be in the category of being God.

We seem to be discussing semantics here. What should we call an omnipotent being that possesses all the attributes commonly attributed to God except that he was brought into existence by some force that no longer exists? I would call that being "God." The writer apparently thinks this being would not really be God, since he is missing an important attribute of God. I see no reason to argue about that difference in our choice of words for such a being (if he exists).

Whether the universe was self-existing or self creating, or whether a self-existing being started it all, is not that significant unless one claims that the self-existant creator has communicated or intervened in human affairs. It is that intervention for which I see no evidence. Without that intervention, the existance of a self-existing creator is merely an academic discussion, from which I refrain from getting involved.

A debate challenge on the Olivet Discourse

2006-10-04T20:52:00.000-04:00

A reader writes that I am wrong about Mark 13. Here I address (in black) his comments (which are in red).

-----------------------------

You write:

I ran across your site while researching for something to do with the written years of the Gospel. I found your site interesting but honestly very sad. It is not my intent to bash you or make you feel in an inferior way since I truly believe that nothing is gained this way. Please do not take my criticism this way cause it surely is not my makeup. With that said I will tell you though that I am a strong thinker, I am an avid reader of the word and a self –educator of learning, and am up for any debate.

I am sorry that you see my site as sad. I wrote it to help others see the joy of discovery that I have found.

To start off I would like to say that by your own admission your journey through life and religion seemed to always want to just fit in so the discomfort of your conscious feelings would be alleviated with any works program designed to take care of this.

Apparently you have me confused with somebody else, because this doesn't even look close to anything I have written. I don't think I ever said anything about wanting to fit in so the discomfort of my conscious feelings would be alleviated with a works program. What I did say is that I have been a follower all my life, but certainly not for the reasons you mention.

Look Merle, Although I would agree that you can make the Bible say anything you want (kind of like your point about getting somebody to substantiate your point of view when needed) Truth has to be grounded in some sort of system that deals with the rules of how and what the basis of that argument is built on for a foundation. The Church today (meaning in our day in age) has done a piss poor job in getting the congregation to think on their own. I agree with you a lot when you talk about to learn how to ask questions and not just agree on “faith” alone. To me this is a cop out (meaning to accept on the basis of faith alone) if you haven’t done all the rest of the homework. But on the flip side of that, truth is truth regardless of mine or your opinion on it, henceforth truth prevails without faith. What we need is the right kind of faith in the right source of substance, but only for our benefit not because if we don’t believe it than it doesn’t exist. Truth is independent from us. We need it for many reasons, it doesn’t need us.

Yes truth is independent of us, and we should ask questions to find the truth. I agree.

Look, I would love to share with you some of your errors in your perception in theology. My forte happens to be eschatology. You in your critique of Marks gospel of the “Olivet Discourse” are way off. For one your assuming that Mark is portraying all of that chapter as Jesus talking about 70 AD’s Great Diaspora. Totally wrong. I really would love to talk more indepthly on this subject and a few more but would rather do it over the phone. You do seem to have a open mind so this is why I will invite you into a controlled debate with me if you would like. I do not propose to have all answers but I do believe that we might do each other good in challenging each others faith.

In my essay, "When Were the Gospels written?" I mention that Mark 13 predicts things that would happen in the disciples' lifetime. I give many references to support my point, and spend considerable time developing my argument. And you call it an assumption? No, it is not an assumption. It is a conclusion I have reached based on the text and the arguments I gave. Do you think my arguments are wrong? Fine. What do you propose as an alternative? What arguments do you have to backup your view? What is wrong with my arguments? So far all you did was tell me I was wrong, but you did nothing to establish an alternative view.

You invite me to a controlled debate, and you suggest we do it by telephone. I have a better idea. Why don't we do it as comments here in this blog? That way we can study the other's views and look up the references before responding. And other people could see what was said and benefit from it also. And others could join in and add additional information and views. Would you welcome such a debate?

And what exactly is a controlled debate over the phone? I never heard of such a thing.

Merle, I do not believe in all sincerity that you were ever a Christian, any more than I believe that wearing a uniform makes a person that particular organization. Churches all through History has been hindering Gods word.

You don't think I was a Christian? Why not? I accepted Christ as my savior, and then set out to live in close fellowship with my savior for years. Why do you think I was not a Christian? Was God's grace not sufficient to save me when I accepted it by faith? If God in his grace did not respond to my faith, how can you be sure God responded to yours?

I am blessed that God taught me at an early age in Christendom what the most vital tool I needed beside the Holy Spirit which was a correct Hermeneutic. I have been a Christian for almost 17 yrs and much of what you’ve said I can identify with. I didn’t say agree, because I don’t , but really I understand.

Okay, you value a correct hermeneutic. Hermeneutics is the branch of philosophy concerned with determining the correct meaning of texts. Here is my hermeneutic. I study the words in context and consider also the context of the times in which the document was written. Do you have a better hermeneutic?

Well any way….Looking to here back from You. I will give you my phone number and set up a time if you would like to join.

Thanks for the invite, but wouldn't a written debate be better than a debate by telephone?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Merle

A new train of thought has left the station.

2006-10-04T07:08:00.000-04:00

A reader writes about his new life:

Just a note to let you know I have enjoyed your site. I was raised Baptist and Pentecostal, and it's taken many years to undo the programming. Then I had a drinking problem and fell in with very fundamentalist variety of Alcoholics Anonymous. I'm still de-programming from that experience, as the motivation to make fundamental changes in my lifestyle drove me deep into the "AA" way of life, which in retrospect looks (and feels) like belonging to a cult.

I have heard that AA can be very cult-like, and that it shares much in common with religion. See 12 Steps to Destruction for a Christian condemnation of AA. Unfortunately, the writers of that book do not seem to be aware that the same criticisms they hurl at AA could be spoken of their own religion.

I wish there were a God, but agree with you that there is no evidence for one, either within me or the world around me. I've had many experiences that I attributed to God but I wouldn't stake my life on it now. On some level, to me, it also takes faith to believe that matter and energy sprang out of nothing, so I guess I'm not a die-hard atheist. I just don't believe that I'm supposed to seek and incorporate "God's will," whatever that is, into my daily life. Whether or not there is a God really doesn't matter that much.

That is the point where I stop also. What caused the universe? If someone were to claim that the universe cannot exist without a creator, than how could God exist without someone to create him? It strains the credibility both to believe in a self-existing universe or a self-existing God. If we must conclude that either the universe or God was self-existing, then I find a self-existing God to be no more likely than a self-existing universe. And I leave it at that.

I'm wondering if you've ever read any of the books in the Conversations with God series by Walsh. He posits that God does not intervene because no matter what harm befalls our bodies and psyches, the important part of us, our soul, is always safe. We return to earth again and again, each time trying to better express our true nature, which is made out of the same stuff that God is made of. This is a somewhat comforting paradigm, but unfortunately his books also contain a lot of stuff that makes no sense or is just off the wall (for example, that our bodies were designed to last forever and that a man who eats and drinks better and achieves better emotional/mental health would in fact live forever).

Well, I am sure that is interesting reading, but I see no evidence for a soul that survives for another pass. This basically sounds like reincarnation, which I find no evidence for.

My "descent" into near-atheism has wreaked havoc on my marriage. My wife is no fanatic, but she does believe in god and Christ and attends nearly weekly. It's just something we don't talk about very much. My views and beliefs were changing when we met and married, and I had no idea how much more they were going to change. It is like you said, there is no stopping a mind set free. A train of new thought has left the station, and it has plenty of momentum.

I understand the experience. The first steps of skepticism are regarded simply as doubts, and one is taught to have faith in spite of those doubts. So one learns to speak in faith, and not fully express the doubts. But when the reasons for skepticism are deeply ingrained, it soon becomes obvious that the effort to keep them in check through faith is deceptive. When one comes to the realization that the doubts are stronger than the faith, and that any show of faith is deceitful, and therefore decides to come out of the closet, it can come as a shock to loved ones who find themselves suddenly learning that they are in a close relationship with an infidel. That can be very stressing. I think that many de-converts keep an outward show of faith simply because the strain of telling the truth can be so stressing on a relationship. But somehow, it seems best to me to speak the truth.

I hope that your new train of thought will lead to a wonderful world.

The faith not to ask "Why?"

2006-10-01T09:42:00.000-04:00

A reader writes that, after a tragic event, she found that faith sustained her. She recommends that I too need such faith. Here are excerpts from her email:

Like you I have these burning questions- they all tend to begin with ‘Why?’

Two months ago my mum committed suicide in the most tragic of circumstances. My parents were happily married for 30 years; we still are and were incredibly close. I miss her...Only a year ago she was the fit and healthy women that I always knew, never any history of problems. Suddenly bang, mental illness (incredible anxiety, psychosis was the root cause) struck her down like a cancer in the brain.

My sister, my dad and my mum are born again Christians and active church goers. I wasn’t. I quit Sunday School when I was 14. Like you I saw too many holes in the supposed theory.

I sat on the fence for a very long time over the last 14 years. Decided it was a comfortable place to be, that way I didn’t have to commit to anything.

Then this happened.

I can only describe in laments terms the prayers and support I have received from my friends and Jesus over the darkest two months of my life have impacted me.

And I would argue that this was the very time I could question ‘Why?’ and completely turn my back on Him, forever. Don’t I have circumstances that warrant that?

I still have the questions, I always will. It keeps me awake.

What stops me going crazy? What really keeps me going? What eventually helps me get to sleep and stop asking the Whys?

All I can say is FAITH. FAITH I never knew was possible. And I know that FAITH will eventually bring me peace to all the Whys.

Brainwashing, perhaps. The fact that I am so desperate, perhaps.

I used to laugh at people like me. I used to think they were so needy, in times of crisis they could cling on to the false hope of a God.

You are intelligent, I can see that from your writing, you are probably far cleverer than myself and I am not going to try and pick points in your site I could argue with. You would win and I would come back to the same answer. FAITH.

I have no doubt you have done some incredibly deep soul searching; you are seeking peace and clarity which is why you wrote this site. God has perfect timing- that I believe. But I will be asking Him all the whys when I get there before I have chance to drive myself round the twist on this Earth!

I hope you find what you are looking for, I really mean that.

I could be patronizing and pray for you. I could put God to the test and ask him for fires from the sky. But when you are hammering on the door asking for it to be opened I don’t think it will be- it’s just not the way it works. Trust me, I know.

The world is a terrible place; you only have to switch on the news. I weep.

What makes me keep going, and not just keep going, but even now have a little joy in this life? Him.

I can’t do it justice with an email, it comes from inside me that I think non- believers don’t want to or can’t get.

I can only tell you that when you find it, that in itself is a miracle.

Take care and may you be truly happy.

First let me express my sympathy for this woman in the tragic loss of her mother. That surely must have been a difficult time for her.

She admits that she has questions about her faith, questions that keep her awake. She says she could argue with points on my site, but admits that I would probably win. And she asks rhetorically, "What eventually helps me get to sleep and stop asking the Whys?" She answers, "All I can say is FAITH." And so we find that the questions and arguments against her faith matter little to her. Somehow she has learned to stop asking why, and has turned to faith. She has learned to believe in a particular theism, and has learned a technique--FAITH--that allows her to shut out the questions at night and get some sleep.

Is she brainwashing herself? Even she admits it may be brainwashing, and may be caused by the fact that she is desperate. And yet she finds a peace in faith that is very real to her. She clings to it, even if it means forcing the Why questions out of her mind.

She is telling me that she can't answer the questions, but faith keeps her going, so therefore this faith is good.

Now I understand the need to find hope, a need that is so great that many turn to an ersatz hope. Faith, positive thinking, "name it and claim it", are just some of the ways that people have learned to force a hope into their minds regardless of reality. But I find that forcing hope into one's mind while ignoring reality is not good. Eventually reality comes crashing in.

Let me illustrate: Years ago I was involved in an engineering project in which a new team was convinced that they could update our large factory. Blind enthusiasm filled the meetings, as they discussed their grandiose plans to rebuild the factory. Those who had experience with such rebuilds in the past, and warned of problems and questioned the unproven technology were regarded as negative. There was no room for questioning the plans, or testing the new concepts before installing them. "Of course they will work! Don't be so negative." And then I watched as the factory was brought to its knees, the old equipment having been removed, and the new equipment dysfunctional. I watched as the old equipment was retrieved from the garbage dump and put back together again to get the factory working.

Now you tell me: Was this blind faith good? Was all of the positive thinking that ignored reality a good idea?

There is a problem with a blind faith that ignores reality. There is a problem with the person who recklessly goes into debt, runs roughshod over the feelings of others, and takes needless risks, all the while forcing himself to believe that all will end up well, for God is on his side. Such faith is asking for trouble.

The gambler who recklessly borrows and wastes his money while maintaining the false hope that he will win it all back has a faith that is not grounded in reality. The terrorist who intentionally flies an airplane into a building in the hope that God will honor the martyrdom has a faith that is not grounded in reality.

So I find that faith and confidence must be grounded in reality. To do that, one must ask, "Why?" One must open her mind to all sides of the issue, and to all questions, to firmly establish herself in reality.

I can have confidence, not because I ignore the questions, but because I find so much to be confident in. There is indeed something marvelous about the human mind. I have a human mind, and I know many people that possess marvelous human minds. (And yes, there are a few around me that surely must also have a marvelous human mind, but sometimes it is hard to tell!) Seeing the wonders of the human mind, I can have hope in what we can accomplish. The hope does not ignore the evils that can be present in humanity, but it sees a reason for hope in spite of the troubles.

So I prefer a confidence based on reality and an honest look at the hard questions. I see no need for a faith that forces away the "Why" questions.

Many small steps

2006-09-30T02:35:00.000-04:00

A former minister writes of his deconversion:

I want to let you know how much I enjoyed your website. I appreciate the careful work it took to set down your arguments. It is good to see that people feel able to come out openly and discuss their reasoning.

I think that the hold of religion is eroding here in Australia, with younger people having no idea what church is about! We do seem to lack some principles of life for young people though.

I was a Churches of Christ Minister briefly, and it took many small steps over the last twenty years to admit the weak historical and scripture basis behind the Christian faith and finally the barrenness of the whole exercise. Religion is a human artifact.

The religion known by many young people is indeed far different from the religion that had been taught a generation ago. For some, these many small steps lead to a milder form of fundamentalism, for others, they lead to a whole new view of life.

Who would die for a lie?

2006-09-22T19:29:00.000-04:00

A reader asks me about the disciples dying for their belief:

I don't know where to start, but I'll try to be brief. There are many parallels between us in our life experience. I have had many doubts growing inside for several years. Taking up astronomy started it steamrolling. I confided to a long time christian friend who is now a pastor that I am down to believing only that Christ lived , died and resurrected . Genesis, time lines , genealogies, and writings just don't jive. I think your essays on old earth and evolution are very strong, but the ones on Jesus and his divinity and resurrection provide no clear explanation. Its still a big what if for me. Question: Almost all of his disciples died horrible deaths according to tradition. Who would die for a lie?

I congratulate this reader in taking the time to ask questions, and consider where they lead. She is certainly on the right road.

What about the disciples? Well, as she wrote, tradition does say they died horrible deaths for their beliefs. But those traditions come many years after the gospels were written. The New Testament does not record any disciple dying specifically for his belief in the resurrection. (Stephen is martyred over a dispute about the law in Acts 7, and we are not told why James was killed in Acts 12. ) Are the later traditions of martyrdom based on facts? The reports of the disciples' martyrdom are so far removed from the events, we really don't know that they are true.

But suppose the disciples really did die for their beliefs. What does that prove? The 19 hijackers died on 9/11 for their beliefs. Does that prove they were right? The folks in the Heaven's Gate cult died for their beliefs. Does that prove they were right? No, sometimes people can be so caught up in their beliefs that they can die for something that is not true.

Religious Belief and Violence in the Middle East

2006-09-15T03:33:00.000-04:00

At the root of the wars in the Middle East lie deep religious views that are at odds with each other. See Religious Belief and Violence in the Middle East for an excellent overview of the problem.

American Theocracy Revisited

2006-09-02T11:01:00.000-04:00

A friend writes with concerns about my essay on American Theocracy. I will address his concerns here. His words are shown below in red.

I'm writing today for a couple of reasons - one is to again express my appreciation for the continued existence of your site. It remains one of the very best out there, in terms of dealing with the subject of 'God' in general, and the Christian experience in specific. Your most recent entry that details the book of Genesis is fantastic. Bravo for that.

This friend and I share much in common in our view of religion. I am glad that he found my site helpful.

At this point, however, you're probably wondering why the title of this e-mail is 'Somewhat Disappointed'. That has to do with your essay entitled 'American Theocracy'. Let me explain...

I read this particular essay expecting to find the usual, thoughtful, commentary; posed to the reader in your typical style of gentle questioning, and followed up with answers that are arrived at vis a vis an exhaustive review of the evidence and available facts. Instead, what I found were blanket statements along with broad, sweeping, generalizations. Perhaps you were merely pointing out the conclusions of the author of the book that coincides with your essay. Nonetheless, I feel that your apparent agreement with these conclusions is based on a skewed or propagandized interpretation of the facts at large.

This point is well taken. I have definitely deviated from my normal questioning style in writing this article. I have gone back and edited it, changing some of the assertions to questions. Also, I have removed much of the references to the Bush administration, as it is not my primary aim to discredit particular politicians. Rather, the aim is to show that many Americans have elevated theocratic issues above all other issues, and vote accordingly. As long as this problem exists, and Americans vote for the politicians that will do the most to force their religion on others, rather than vote for the politician that will do the most to address the glaring concerns in our country, we are going to find a deterioration of our country.

Unfortunately, my time is somewhat limited and I don't have time to detail a point by point counterpoint of this essay. Additionally, my time constraints won't allow me to go into any protracted debate either (which I apologize for in advance). So let me keep it somewhat simple by merely taking one of your statements to task: "The Bush Administration lied to us about weapons of mass destruction."
Merle, a statement doesn't become a "lie" simply because it isn't true. A "lie" is directly proportional to intent not content. There is simply no credible reason to believe that President Bush told a deliberate "lie" on the WMD issue. Please consider some of the following:

Okay, I see that I made a claim about the Bush administration without giving supporting details. I have changed that statement to read, "Our leaders were wrong in their assertions that we faced imminent danger from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." I still think the evidence indicates that Bush either deliberately lied, or was so overwhelmed by cognitive dissonance that he was blinded to facts that opposed his preconceived ideas, but I do not wish to be sidetracked by this issue.

* Director Tenet of the CIA - originally appointed by President Clinton - said that the case amounted to a 'slam dunk'===> ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet

Okay, it was reported that Tenet said this. Your source (wikipedia) references the book "Plan of Attack" as its source. If you click the link wikipedia references, you will read,

In the book, CIA director George Tenet is noted as stating the evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was "a slam dunk." Later, Tenet is forced to admit that his intelligence was flawed when months of post-war searches turned up nothing.

So even Tenet admits the intelligence of WMD was flawed. That is the problem. We have gone to a war under a false fear of WMD. Whether that was caused by deceptive leaders, incompetence, or a legitimate mistake is not the primary issue. The issue is that the war to eliminate WMD was not required. Many Americans either ignore or do not care about the lack of WMD in Iraq, but would rather worry about forcing a narrow morality on others.

* Numerous members of the Democrat Party believed Iraq had WMD, and clearly said so===> http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm

Yes, I understand that many politicians from both major parties supported the buildup to Iraq. Much of this support was based on the belief that their political futures required them to appease those who promoted the war. It is sad that there were so few voices within the government pleading for caution on the issue of war, whereas world opinion and the opinion of many Americans was strongly urging caution before starting that war.

Did others believe the WMD story because they reviewed the evidence and found it convincing, or because they followed what they were told by the administration and because of political pressure? Personally, I think the blame lies on the Bush administration, but that is not my main point.

* Recently, declassified material from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center (a Defense Department intelligence unit) confirmed the following ===> http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf and so on.

Well, yes there have been some remnants of Iraqi chemical weapons and some weapons may still have had some limited potency. But why did Iraq have these weapons? Iraq used its weapons against the Kurds, Kuwait and Iran, not against the United States. If anything, Iraq maintained weapons because of its ongoing conflicts with its neighbors.

Some might argue that it doesn't matter what their intentions were, the weapons could have fallen into the hands of terrorists, and that was the problem. But if we adopt that strategy, where does it stop? Do we fight any country that has a weapon that could hurt us if terrorists were to obtain it? Cell phones and simple explosives can make devastating terrorist weapons. Should we attack all nations that have cell phones and simple explosives? And what about the nuclear arms in Russia and Pakistan? Do we attack any nation that has dangerous weapons? It seems to me that it is a mistake to do preemptive strikes at any country with powerful weapons and some people that hate us.

And besides, if all nations are entitled to attack any nation that has massive weapons and some hating people. does that entitle many nations to attack America? For surely America has the greatest stockpile of WMD, and some people here would love to use them. (I have heard more than one person suggest that we should have dropped a nuclear bomb on Baghdad.) So I don't buy the attitude that is quick to resort to war when we see another country with dangerous weapons.

It is interesting that one of your quotes is from Glenn Beck, who is now vocally recommending that we need to remain in Iraq to keep Iran from moving in. Now we learn that, after the war, Iraq does not have a good enough army to defend itself. Interestingly we were told that we went to war because Iraq had too many powerful weapons, and now are told that we need to stay at war because Iraqis are defenseless against their neighbors. Could it be that disarming Iraq did nothing to stabilize the region?

Why do so many of my fellow travelers in the non-theist community seem to think that non-theism mandatorially goes hand in hand with a left leaning political worldview? Also, why do so many of them automatically link right leaning political views with theism; particularly, Christian theism?

As you've probably guessed, I do identify myself as a political Conservative. But along with that, consider this:

* I support a woman's ability to obtain an abortion.
* I think that the current crop of drug laws don't work.
* I think sodomy laws are beyond ridiculous.

and (no surprise here)...

* I'm an atheist.
* I support complete Church-State separation.
* I believe that "religious right" and "religious left" (yes, there is a 'religious left') organizations need to have their tax exempt status pulled.

In closing, let me ask: were you aware that there are actually a number of conservative atheist websites out there? If so, have you ever reviewed any of
them (and if so, with an open mind?). Let me leave you with a few of the URL's
that I sincerely hope you will find the time to peruse (and consider).

Here they are:

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/index.jsp

http://www.compleatheretic.com/home.html

http://www.nationalatheists.com/

http://www.conservativeatheist.com/

Conservative positions include any thing from anti-abortion, to strong defence, fiscal responsibility, small government, limited welfare programs, pro-gun, return to Biblical rule, softness on environmental issues, or support of big business. Certainly non-theists can and do take the "conservative" side of many of these issues.

In particular many non-theists support limited government or strong defence. Those are noble positions, and are certainly areas on which non-theists can have productive debate. But supporting limited government or strong defence is far different from the theocratic voting patterns that I am concerned about.

Is Evolution Impossible?

2006-08-27T11:31:00.000-04:00

A reader writes, arguing that evolution is impossible. I respond to him at http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/bean2.

Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

2006-08-19T12:06:00.000-04:00

I have a prayer request: I know somebody who had a leg amputated. Would you pray that his leg grows back?

If you are a praying Christian, you are most likely surprised by that request. You have probably never heard anyone ask for such a thing. Could I be serious? But why not pray for the missing leg to be restored? After all if I asked you to pray for a friend with cancer or depression you might well do it. What is the difference? Does God care about the victim of cancer or depression, but not about the amputee?

Some will tell me that legs don't grow back, that this would require a miracle. Precisely! Isn't that what prayer is all about? Aren't you asking God to intervene and change the course of events? Is the task of growing back a leg too difficult for the maker of the world? Or could it be that you recognize that there is no real power in prayer? Is that why you do not pray for the amputee?

Recently I was informed of an impressive website, Why Won't God Heal Amputees? This site deals with this question in much detail, as well as many other important issues of the faith. The author asks many challenging questions, and writes in a way that powerfully presents the truth without being offensive. This site is a great site for all fence-sitters to see.

Abortions and Atrocities

2006-07-25T21:36:00.000-04:00

The issue of abortion is often a hot button issue with Christians. I tend to avoid the debate, but frequently Christians want to steer the debate to that topic, particularly if we are talking about Bible atrocities. Abortion came up again in our discussion of absolute truth below. I will move the discussion here, since it is way off topic.

First, most people can agree that a mother can have the right to abort the life of any tissue that is not yet a person. But when does tissue become a person? Does it happen when the egg is created, when the sperm and egg combine, when the cell attaches to the uterus, when the cell starts to divide, when the heart forms, when the brain forms, at birth, or at some other time? There are numerous opinions on this. I understand many Catholics treat the egg almost as a person before fertilization (and thus contraception is sin); many conservative protestants consider the zygote to be a person at conception (and thus the morning-after pill is sin); and liberal Protestants see that the fetus becomes a person about 6 months after conception. You will see endless debates on exactly when this happens, with each assuming that they have the absolute truth, and that the other opinions are misguided. It is really quite comical, and I tend to avoid the whole thing. But somehow I can't even discuss Absolute Truth without somebody insisting I need to talk about abortion. Go figure.

The other instance where one might justify abortion, even when the fetus is acknowledged as a person, is where the doctors determine that there is no way to save the life of the mother without aborting the baby. It is like shooting down a hijacked plane full of innocent people before it hits a heavily populated building. Most people cringe at the thought of downing a commercial airliner, but when they think it over, most can realize that, if there is no other way to prevent the disaster, it would be better to shoot down the plane than to watch thousands of innocent people die. Many would see that the same principle could apply to a baby hopelessly stuck in the birth canal, with no possibility of saving either the mother or the baby unless the baby is killed to save the mother.

Much worse than being honestly mistaken about when life begins, or killing a baby in self defense, is the brutal act of killing a baby because one does not like his parents. But those who do that act are blessed in Psalm 137, and the act is even commanded in passages such as 1 Samuel 15.

In another thread I had been discussing Psalm 137:9 ( "How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock."). I respond here to Lormar, who made the comments in quotes below:

--------
Lormar,

Do you or do you not agree that late term abortion (to save the mother's life) leads to the death of the baby? (guess what Merle, I happen to be pro-choice on that matter). Although I would like to save the life of the mother, I can admit that the baby is still dead. Can you?

First this response appears to be an evasion of the question. For you wrote this in direct response to my question, "Do you or do you not agree with Psalm 137 that it is blessed to dash babies against rocks?" And your answer doesn't address the question. Please answer. Do you or do you not think it was blessed to dash the Babylonian babies against the rocks?

Regarding your question, yes, of course, a late term abortion causes death to the baby. Why do you ask?

I believe the Bible teaches us lessons through the books included within it.

Sure the Bible gives us lessons. But it also gives bad advice. It has some good advice and some bad advice. Do you agree?

What would have happened if Hitler were killed as a child? What about Osama? Pol Pot?

So? You are not suggesting that it was OK to kill Babylonians babies because they would have grown up to be evil, are you?

Would your opinion change if the Bible declared that all of those babies were slaughtered through abortion?

If they were killed by a willing mother who wanted to terminate a pregnancy before the embryo became a person, sure, that would be different from slaughtering somebody else's baby to get revenge. Can you see the difference between the two acts?

You said innocent babies. Are you implying that babies sometimes guilty?

No, of course not. All babies are innocent in the sense that they have done nothing worthy of capital punishment.

Do I complain about babies killed in the Bible? Believe it or not, No. If I am pro-choice on late term abortions (to save the life of the mother), I see no reason to complain about the Bible. How about you?

Yes, I have a problem when the Bible says to kill babies. And you do not have a problem with that? If you were a soldier in the army of Saul, would you have willingly plunged your sword through enemy babies as the verses command?

I can admit that the baby is still dead, dashed against the stones or aborted. What about you?

Yes, I agree, dead babies are dead. Why do you ask?

You had a picture of a baby (one of your pages) as an example of your disgust at certain Biblical passages. Do you mean to tell me that you would see it as morally right to have that baby aborted (assuming he/she is still in the mother's womb at the 8th or 9th month) and morally wrong if the baby were dashed against a stone? Surely, you must see that there would be no difference since that baby would be dead either way.

You want my opinion? OK, It might be morally acceptable to kill a baby if the only possible way to save the mother's life was to terminate a baby that is stuck in the birth canal. That is an act of self defence. Yes, it would be a heart-wrenching decision, but I can see the moral justification. We could have a deep love for both the baby and the mother, and nobody would ever want to be faced with such an agonizing situation.

But it would not be acceptable to kill a baby out of the desire to get revenge against the baby's dad. Can you see the difference?

You seem to believe that we should not kill babies unless we 'kill them nicely' (via abortion).

Sorry, that is not the issue. The issue is killing in self-defence versus killing in a premeditated act of revenge.

Since you love to debate, allow me to give you a tip for future reference: Be sure to get that person's stance on an issue before proceeding with a debate)...again, I am pro-choice when it comes to saving the mother's life.

Huh? What I had said was, "Do you care to weigh in with your opinion on this? If the doctors conclude that both the baby and mother will die, that the baby cannot be saved, but that the mother could be saved if the baby is aborted, what would you do? "

I did exactly what you ask me to do! I didn't know your views so I asked you. I had no intention of implying which way you believed on this isssue, and apologize if my words came across as assuming something wrong about you.

The difference with me is, I can admit that the baby is still put to death. Can you?

Yes, dead babies are dead. I agree. Why do you ask?

I was a victim of serious crime. I wished horrible things on those who hurt me. Do you see me as bloodthirsty and hateful?

It saddens me to hear you were a victim of serious crime. I can understand that you may have felt a desire for horrible things to happen to the guilty party. I suspect those feelings were also tempered by desires for fairness, justice, and mercy, but there is no problem with experiencing a mass of painful emotions after being a victim. Having such feelings does not make a person evil.

But if you had come on the Internet and said, "Blessed shall he be that takes my attacker's baby girl and smashes her head into a rock", then I would think you are not responding in a wise manner. Can you see the difference between feeling a desire for revenge, and announcing a blessing on killing babies?

American Theocracy

2006-07-19T21:41:00.000-04:00

In George W. Bush's first term the national debt soared, America became entangled in a prolonged war in Iraq, and the environment suffered. But many Americans had something far weightier on their minds, the fact that Bush favored their Evangelical positions. In his book, American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips discusses the political movement that kept Bush in power. (Click here for more)

"I decided that Christianity was not the truth "

2006-07-08T21:41:00.000-04:00

A reader writes of his deconversion:

I am 31 and I was a Christian my entire life until about 6 months ago. I was not just any Christian though. I was a "sprit filled", tongue talking, "demon rebuking", three day a week Church going Christian. Did just about everything there was to do with church. I was the guy that would gladly tell you why you were wrong and I had the truth and can help you find it. I would be eager to take on anyone in debate and was so proud of my knowledge of the Bible. Up until recent that is! I came accross the website http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ in January and I was stunned. After reading enough contradictions and horrible stories I decided that the Bible was the most evil book I had ever read, and I did not understand why I did not see it before. At that time I decided that Christianity was not the truth and to stop going to church and give it up. There is only one problem though. I would like to tell you a little about my story and even my current problem (with Christianity), but I wanted to email you first to see if you would be willing to discuss this with me, or if this was just an automated "read em and delete em" type of email. I know you probably get a lot of email and I did not want to pour my heart out and tell a long story without checking with you first. Let me know and I will continue my story and problem. Thanks.

I love to receive emails like this, and to learn what is happening in the lives of those who move on beyond their religion. I would love to hear the rest of this story. I will consider putting it on this blog --anonymously if the writer prefers--so all can read about another mind set free.

Also, if the writer would prefer privacy, and wants to discuss the "problem" without airing it publicly, I would certainly love to communicate with him privately.

A debate challenge on absolute truth

2006-06-25T07:00:00.000-04:00

I respond here to an email discussing truth and nihilism.

----------------------

Dear BH,

Thanks for writing. You write:

I don't suppose you will give this email more than a cursory glance given the number of Christians who must launch their far ranging views at you but I hope you do that at least.

Actually, I try to read all emails sent to me. I enjoy reading views that differ with mine. I am glad for any feedback.

My son has done the same as you. He describes with remarkable similarity the sense of freedom from the 'rules and regulations' of the belief system to which he once adhered. Knowing what he understood I guess anything outside of that would be liberating. Its amazing how he is doing the exact opposite of what he once genuinely believed and condemned. Yes there is freedom in not believing anything and it is liberating to allow one's nature full reign to do what it likes. I know because half my life was as an unbeliever. Interestingly my son who is a deep thinker has started to come to the place where he is starting to question what he calls 'the shallow futility' of his new lifestyle.

Based on this paragraph, it would appear to me that your son has experienced something far different from what I have experienced. You speak of his shallow futility and his lack of belief in anything. This definitely does not describe me. I have discovered a new way of looking at life, a rich and full way of understanding and loving life. I am sorry that your son has experienced a shallow futility and no longer believes anything. Perhaps your son could learn from my website.

The bottom line as far as I can tell and what I would like to suggest to you my friend (if I may have the honor of calling you that) is that there still remains Absolute Truth. By Absolute Truth I mean only one set of facts about who we are, why we are here, where we are going, what happens when we die, and how this world and the known universe came into existence. That A T remains A T whether you or I believe it or not. It is unchanging; absolute. Now, if you can accept that premise I would like to challenge you to a discussion of how we can establish exactly what that truth is. If you don't accept that premise then I will be forced to leave you to choose whatever you want to believe. What do you say Merle?

I agree with you that there is a truth about the universe. Am I absolutely certain of that? Well, no, I cannot be absolutely certain. What if my senses are deceiving me? What if I wake up some day to find the entire universe was something I dreamed up? But assuming my senses have not invented the universe--and that does seem to me like a reasonable assumption--then there is indeed an objective universe with objective truth out there.

You have challenged me to a discussion of how we can establish that truth. I accept. I have written an email accepting the challenge and asking how you want to carry out the debate. You have not responded yet. If you are interested in discussing this, you could add your comments here, or you could write to me and let me know how you would like to continue.

Regards,
Merle

PS. I have written BH informing him of this posting at my blog.

That lingering fear of hell.

2006-06-23T02:50:00.000-04:00

A reader writes:

I've been reading your stuff online and it really sums up my feelings over the last few years. When everything about a person can be explained physically, what remains to be called a soul?...I too was raised a Christian and was rather obnoxious about it back in my 20's with all my bumper stickers etc. If people back then could see me now! If God exists why would he punish me for using my brain which he created? I think what most people call faith is really superstition. Its not that they believe but that they're afraid not to believe...Hey, do you sometimes still get a little nervous about going the other direction? I mean can a person ever escape early life (sunday school days) indoctrination? I'm still worried about hell on some level that I don't think I'll ever shake. I envy people who'll on their death beds have no fear of hell because they never went to church or believed. I think every Christian fears death and even hell!

I understand your fears, but I can truthfully say that, if you continue your course, I expect those fears will disappear. You will become like the people you say you envy, a person who could face death without the terror of hell.

Though the question of what hell would be like is something I sometimes think about, it is not something I fear. Although the fear of hell once dominated my life, that fear is now gone. And others have told me the same thing. When one first begins to doubt the faith of his youth, he will naturally have such fears. But it is my experience that the fear goes away after time.

I have often considered the possibility that I might be wrong. Suppose I wake up after death and find to my surprise that I must now face a judgement. Then what? Well, if we wake to find ourselves in an afterlife, then I think none of us could be so arrogant to say we know for sure what will happen next. We don't. Such an experience is so far from any data that we now have available that we would all be uncertain at that point. Now my best guess is that, if I should find myself alive in the afterworld, I will be glad that I did exactly what I did, that I honestly admitted my doubts, and willingly helped people to use their own minds to escape beyond the bondage of religious fear and start living.

Although I have been taught to fear hell from childhood, I would be very surprised if the fear of hell would come back to me at death's door. I have thought about that moment so many times in my life that I think I would be prepared. I expect for me that death will be like going to sleep. It will be like realizing that the consciousness that I call "Me" is going to sleep, never to wake.

If you fear hell, I would ask you to face that fear boldly. Think about it. Read the evidence that death ends all. Read about the lack of evidence of the need to maintain certain beliefs to escape hell. Think about what is important to you in life, and what actions in life will make you the most confident when you face the end of life.

Face the fears boldy, and then move on. Live life to the fullest. For it is life that matters, not death. And it is up to each of us to make the most of this life.

A Debate on Salvation

2006-06-05T21:27:00.000-04:00

Previously I responded to some questions about my born-again experience here on the blog. That led to some interesting discussion. I have continued that discussion on my website.

A Closer Look at Genesis

2006-05-29T22:14:00.000-04:00

The latest addition to my site is a file entitled "A Closer Look at Genesis 1-25." I review many of the problems with the book of Genesis, and demonstrate that the problems with the Bible go far beyond a few scattered verses.

"I decided to challenge the God of the Bible."

2006-05-24T06:25:00.000-04:00

I received a recent email from a lady who has begun to seriously question her faith. She asks many good questions, and brings an interesting perspective to the debate. I share it with you here.

I am a christian who has been struggling with my faith lately. Many of the things mentioned in your site are in some ways similar to what I am going through. First I'd like to say that I have not and will not question the born-again experience that you claim to have had. I know of a few people who were at one time born-again but are no longer. Christians have to come to understand that one can indeed have been on fire for Christ to later no longer believe in what they used to. I think the root of that belief is fear that one can lose their salvation. That is why some believe in the once saved always saved doctrine; which is based on fear. I know of a current pagan who described himself at one time as being a very spiritual christian. So it is indeed
possible to no longer believe.

I started out in a very strict pentecostal church-- no pants, make-up, movies, secular music, etc. I became disillusioned with that group and moved on to another which is much better. What really caused me to begin questioning was not science or the so called pagan influences of christianity (which after personal study, I find to be false), but this whole issue of faith. I just can't take any more of being told to believe for things that aren't going to happen. I'll give you an example: I met a woman whose son was killed in Iraq. She did so much praying for him to come home alive. Unfortunately, he died there. I had a brother who was there twice, and I did not want to "step out on faith", as many christians put it. I'd rather not believe for something and end up disappointed. As it turned out, my brother came back alive. My point is, I had no faith, and I had a great outcome. This woman had faith and her son died.

That isn't the only problem. Just about every woman has a desire to parent. However, I've spoken to many married christian women who have fertility problems. Yet, being a teacher, I see teen girls getting pregnant all the time. I also know of single church going women who have children without being married. Something is wrong with this picture, [quotes Psalm 127:3, "children are an heritage of the LORD"] My point is if children are a reward from God, then why are those who commit fornication rewarded with children while so many who are married do not get such a reward? I thought the wages of sin was death, not a reward. I have also heard about a British study which shows that a woman is more likely to become pregnant by a man who isn't her husband. So if that study is true, a woman is more likely to be rewarded if she commits adultery, another sin. This makes no sense at all. I want to make it clear, that I have not read the study. I have only heard about it on a medical documentary (the Discovery channel).

There is also the issue of tithing. Most churches teach that we will be cursed if we don't tithe. Yet, I have yet to see the windows of heaven open after giving so much to the church (as claimed). I'd have to admit that most people do not know of my feelings. I am known as a good christian woman and others would be shattered to know that I have such questions. I have even had others tell me that they admire my faith and have been led to Christ by my witness. Again, these people do not know that I have been questioning lately. This is only half of my story.

In all honesty, I am not sure where all of this will lead me. I wonder if I simply need a new denomination or a new outlook all together. With that said, I have decided to weigh all of my options. I will study more of the bible "contradictions" as well as other faiths more closely than I have. I even decided to challenge the God of the Bible. If he and his word are all they are claimed to be, it is up to him to prove it. No one should have to spend time debating or proving God. We are only human so it is up to God to prove who he is, not us. My study will lead me one of two ways. Either I'll find that the God of the Bible is a hoax, or my relationship with God will be stronger than ever after my study is over. In fact, all faiths and atheists have to prove their cases. Others may disagree, but I could never align myself with any group without evidence/credibility (whether believers or those who do not believe). Whatever the case, this is something I need to do.

I hope that my email did not bore or confuse you. I just needed to speak about this with someone who will hopefully not be judgmental or harsh.

Thanks for listening.

Yes, it could well be that many refuse to think that a Christian could stop believing, because that would then mean that they too could someday stop believing. If they think that the result of not believing will be horrible torment in hell, then it is hard to bear the thought that they too might someday not believe. So many refuse to think that it can happen.

Many 0f us have found that our observations of the world do not match what faith says it should be. There comes a time when we realize that our observations are not deceiving us, and that faith really does not work as claimed.

It is good that this lady began to study and question. She is on the right track, and can expect an exciting adventure of discovery ahead if she continues this course. I wish her well.

Questions About my Born-Again Experience.

2006-05-11T13:14:00.000-04:00

A reader writes with questions about my born-again experience. He writes that he is not "trying to argue the truth of the Christian world view" but is rather trying to see if Christianity is "coherent and predictive with respect to your experiences."

His questions are shown in bold.

First, you state you were "born again". Would you describe what that meant to you?

When I was a fundamentalist, being born-again meant that I had put my faith in Christ alone for salvation. Before that I had lived with a horrible fear of hell which dominated my life. I was constantly accepting Christ into my heart, begging for forgiveness, confessing my sin and my faith in Christ, etc., but never quite sure if I had done it right. After reading the tract What Must I do to be Saved I determined that faith alone was sufficient, and put my faith in Christ alone. This greatly relieved the fear of hell, for I now believed that I was safe from the torment.

Later, after fundamentalism had failed me and I had spent years in apathy, I had a second experience in which I determined that I needed the help of God, and set out once more to live in fellowship with him in a close relationship with Jesus Christ. I thought that the God of the universe was now with me, guiding me and talking to me on my way.

Second, in light of your answer and in conjunction with your "change of mind", how did that change your concept of being "born again"?

I now see the first experience as a natural result of the relief from the immense fear of hell that I had experienced in early life. Having lived with that fear, and then later finding relief, it gave me a tremendous boast in life. I now see that this experience was nothing more than a relief from artificial fears.

The second experience is harder to explain. I was in despair before my "walk with God", and had great hope afterward. I now see that the reason for that hope is because I was committing myself to something, and was working to make a better world. I now think that I could have had the same experience by committing myself to many other views. I tell more about my story here.

Third, you obviously have a reasonable grasp of the Christian worldview. Do you believe that within that view, there is an explanation for your experiences?

Christians have a wide range of views about my experiences. I have had many people express their opinions about my experiences in my past debates. And they can't seem to agree.

Some think my experiences were bogus because the true Christian experience comes from the Catholic church, and I was not there. Others think my fundamentalist experience was the correct one, and that since one cannot lose salvation, I am still saved. Others think my fundamentalist experience would have been correct, but they will tell me I never really believed (even though I know I once sincerely believed). Others would think my fundamentalist experience was bogus, but that my later evangelical experience was real, and that I was therefore a child of God and am still a child of God (but backslidden). Others think my evangelical experience was real, but they think one can lose salvation, so they think I lost mine. Still others think my evangelical experience was an ersatz replica of true evangelical experience, and never valid. And some think that neither the fundamentalist nor the later evangelical experience were valid, but that Christianity is instead about following the Sermon on the Mount, and not about born-again experiences. One Christian even told me I was not "saved" back in my Christian days, but I am now! (see this thread, post 294).

So are one of these Christian views the "coherent and predictive" truth about my experiences? If so, which one?

To see more of the confusion about what is required for heaven, see Requirements for Heaven.

Why I am a Humanist

2006-05-01T21:12:00.000-04:00

I am a humanist. By this I mean that I accept and promote the values and principles traditionally accepted by humanists. Here I will list some of the more important of those values, and explain why they are important to me. (Click here to see more.)

Why no Bible stories about China or America?

2006-04-28T15:34:00.000-04:00

A reader writes with another deconversion story:

Thank you for making this great website in a clearly organized and greatly analyzed way. I accepted Jesus Christ in 1999 after seeing how happy Christians' lives can be and after learning the story that Jesus had died on the cross for my sins as preached by an evangelist. Soon after that, I joined bible study groups and church regularly, where we were taught many miracles that Jesus has performed. However, since I was not a Christian (sorta Buddhists/Taoist) before this and I have many Muslim friends, I questioned my group leader and more experienced Christian friends about the story of evolution, why the earth is much older than the bible said, and why do we have to believe the Bible when Muslims claimed Quran contains God's true words and Bible incomplete. Also, I asked them why can't the bible be a fictional story written by the people that live in the old days? I am sad to say, I did not get convincing answers and most of the time, the discussion will end abruptly when my Christian friends could no longer answer my doubts. They will usually tell me that I do not have to see to believe. All I need is to believe by FAITH. Slowly, my faith decreased and I stopped attending church or bible study.

Also, each time I read the bible, I thought that if God had created the world and humans, surely he must have known that the Chinese people exist too. However, the stories written in the bible only revolves around people in Egypt and places surrounding it. Why is there no mention of the Red Indian tribes in America? The only reason that could answer this is that, those people who wrote the stories in the bible did not know that "outside" world exist at that time. Although I have this conjecture in my mind, I still thought, NO WAY, I have to believe by faith because I want to go to Heaven!

After reading the Da Vinci Code, and The Last Templar, I had actually made up my mind that even if in the future Jesus is proven to be not godly and is merely a mortal, I am open to it and will accept it. But I still believed on certain things Jesus taught which I learnt from bible study and sermons.

Then, today, I finally chance upon your website. And guess what? I am quite surprised that even the church chose to use only the "good" stories to teach us of a loving God. Not a God who is irrational and killed babies. I am really greatful that you wrote in detail how we should believe in scientific facts. Thank you and now I am convinced and no longer believe in Christianity

Yes, why would a God of the universe be so intensely interested in several tribes along the Mediterranean Sea, while making no mention of the rest of the world? Did he have no message for the people of China or America? Why do the Old Testament writings look so much like the egocentric tribal rantings of the other nearby tribes? Surely an Omnipotent God would see beyond the next hilltop in Israel.

The writer of this email has asked good questions, and is on the right path.