September 2017 – TrueFreeThinker

Mormon Theology vs. The Sh'ma

The statement in Deuteronomy 6:4 is the bedrock of monotheism for Judaism as well as Christianity. An understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity must begin with establishing monotheism.

This foundational statement is generally worded as,

Sh’ma Yisra’el Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad

And is translated as,

Hear, O, Israel! The LORD, our God, the LORD is one

Or,

Hear, O, Israel! The LORD, our God is one LORD

A Latter-Day Saint Commentary on the Old Testament makes the following observations on the Sh’ma in commenting on Deuteronomy 6:1-4,

Moses opens his overview of divine laws with a proclamation: “Hear, O Israel: JEHOVAH is our God; JEHOVAH is one” (Deut. 6:4, translation mine). The first word, hear, is shema in Hebrew, so the whole verse is called the Shema by Jews; they cite it on special occasions, and the deeply religious desire to repeat the verse at the moment of death.
They do not, of course, pronounce the name Jehovah but use a substitute, Abonai, which means “my Lord.” The law of God is for man’s good: “Observe to do it; that it may be well with thee’ (Deut. 6:3).”1

This is very true but appears to miss the point, which is that the Sh’ma is problematic to Mormon theology.

Mormonism claims that God the Father is Elohim and that Jesus is Jehovah.
Firstly, it should be noted that the Hebrew word elohim is not God’s name. Mormon President, Joseph Fielding Smith (1838-1918), referred to Elohim as a, “name-title.”2

This word is variably translated as God, god, gods, goddess, judges, great, mighty, angels. The singular form El is translated as God, god, idol, might, mighty one, power.

In A Sermon Delivered by President Brigham Young, In the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 9, 1852 –Journal of Discourses 1:50-51, Brigham Young stated:

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost…
Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

Secondly, the letters of the Tetragrammaton are yod, hay, vav, hay. Merely by their sound we can tell that YHWH is not quite right and neither is JHVH-but rather, YHVH since there is no “J” nor “W” sounds in Hebrew.
The point however, is that it is a Jewish practice to state Adonai in place of YHVH as it is the practice in English to state The LORD in place of YHVH.

Thirdly, when discussing monotheism and trinitarianism with Mormons they will likely state that God is one in purpose. This is a statement with which we ought to agree-God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit certainly are one in purpose. Yet, this is not the point of monotheism, nor trinitarianism. God is one in purpose and God is one and one single one, there is one single God and no more than one.

Isaiah 43:10-11, 44:8, 45:14, 18, 46:9,

“You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, And besides Me there is no savior…
You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one”…
Surely God is in you, And there is no other; There is no other God…
I am the Lord, and there is no other…
For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me.

The Book of Mormon-Alma 11:28-29 states,

Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he [Amulek] answered, No.

In light of the strong witness of the Isaiah passage it may be of interest to consult with A Latter-Day Saint Commentary on the Old Testament. The following quote covers this commentary’s entire statements on Isaiah 43:1-28:

The Creator is also the Redeemer and Savior. He will gather latter-day Israel to resume the mission Abraham and Israel to enlighten the “blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears” in all nations.Those who respond and truly serve the Lord become his “witnesses” (Isa. 43:1-10 and fn.). The Lord (that is, Jehovah) is the only Savior, the Redeemer, the Holy One, the Creator, and King; he will make new ways for peace and end old wars (Isa. 43:11-17).

This vision ends with a fervent call from the Lord to his people to forsake and forget their former sinful ways, fulfill their covenant duties, be relieved of their suffering, and rejoice that the Lord will blot out transgressions for all who turn to him and communicate with him. They can become “justified” (Isa. 43: 18-28).3

In other words, it does not comment on the poignant text of v. 10.

Note the appeal being made in the Isaiah passage, it is the LORD making the statement, a statement that He wants us to know, believe and understand, there is not only one God but there will never be more than one.

Thus, the Sh’ma is telling us that YHVH Eloheinu YHVH echad. Note that while Mormons teach that God the Father is Elohim and that Jesus is Jehovah [or YHVH], the Sh’ma is stating that YHVH is Eloheinu and is one. This statement is being made with regards to one single Person. It is not stating that Jesus is our God the Father and Jesus is one.
Rather, it is stating that YHVH who is our mighty one is YHVH who is one. The Sh’ma is stating that YHVH, who is our Mighty One – our Elohim, this YHVH is one Jews and Christians have understood this for millennia. Therefore, it is hermeneutically inappropriate for Mormonism to seek to read its own preconceived notions into the text of scripture.

brigham young

Dan Barker and the Alien Rape Voyeurs, part 2 of 7

Introductory Conclusion: Having dealt with the Timothy McVeigh issue; I continue the essay with my conclusion because I think that it is so important that I do not want it to be missed.

Dan Barker absolutely discredits every criticism he has ever, and will ever, utter against religion, Christianity, the Bible, God, Jesus, etc. by his own relativistic situational ethics. This essay will support this rather hefty assertion.

Dan Barker begins the debate by mentioning that on his drives around the city in which the debate took place he noticed may cars, with Christian stickers on them, breaking the speed limit. Perhaps, unbeknownst to him, his introductory statement spoke volumes about his emotionally spiked cynical worldview: he sees a car with Christian stickers on it speeding past him and he instantly begins to think about how immoral and hypocritical Christians are.

Is that so? I would appear to be so because there are many possibilities that he appears to not be considering:

1. A rebellious teenager who rejected Christianity and is now an atheist could have borrowed her Christian mommy’s car.

2. An atheist may have borrowed the car of a Christian friend.

3. An atheist may have just bought a used car previously owned by a Christian (I happen to know someone who bought a used car and, for some reason and for some time, left some Freemasonry insignias that were stuck on the back of the car).

4. An atheist might have stolen the car from a Christian and was speeding off.

5. The car may be owned by a person who became a Christian 20 minutes ago and got so excited that 10 minutes ago they placed a Christian sticker on their car and simply has not had the chance to reflect on their new moral outlook yet.

All speculation aside, most likely Christians were driving those cars and speeding, I am not denying for a moment that this is the most likely case. In this regard, Tom Neven’s article How a Fish Taught Me to Drive Better may be of interest.

Yet, that is not the point, the point is that Dan Barker does not appear to logically consider these, and other, viable options but emotionally reacts on his prejudices by instantly going for the jugular. Personally, I would be embarrassed I ever found myself criticizing the driving of people who had a Darwin fish on their bumpers and I would be even more embarrassed to mention it as my very first statement in a formal debate. But what I would or would not do is not relevant here–relevant is Dan Barker’s statements regarding ethics.

Mormon Monument in New Mexico

Glenn Beck – politics and theology, Mormonism and Christianity

I have been contemplating issues Glenn Beck related as of late, particularly with regards to his recent Washington DC gathering.
Gregg, of the blog Gospel-Driven Disciples, recently posted Glenn Beck: The Usurping of the Christian Agenda and this seemed a good opportunity to play off of his musing, some of which follows:

Church – What is wrong with this picture?

“A Mormon television star stands in front of the Lincoln Memorial and calls American Christians to revival. He assembles some evangelical celebrities to give testimonies, and then preaches a God and country revivalism that leaves the evangelicals cheering that they’ve heard the gospel, right there in the nation’s capital. The news media pronounces him the new leader of America’s Christian conservative movement, and a flock of America’s Christian conservatives have no problem with that.”
–Russell Moore

Just how naive is evangelical Christianity today? In a great show of patriotic conservatism and the spirit of ecumenism “Christianity” and the “evangelical church” demonstrated its depth of nativity and foolishness this past weekend in Washington D. C.

I am not going to question Glenn Beck or the conservative “right’s” motives or patriotism. Beck and anyone else for that matter has the right to stand for their political party and agenda. My problem is not with Beck but with the so called “Christian” right…

as of yet, I have not read nor heard of an explanation that would biblically convince me that Beck is a Christian. He is a baptized Mormon in good standing with the theological position of that organization…

It is my prayer that men like Glenn Beck become true believers.

I wanted to focus on all of the buzz about Mormonism (aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) and Christianity—the correlation or disparity. The buzz is actually 180 years old and raises its head periodically such as when Mitt Romney ran for president. For some the issue is as simple as, “Well, Mormons use the words and believe in ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’ and read the Bible so obviously they are Christians.”

For others, the more discerning, the issue is, “Well, Mormons use the words and believe in ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’ and read the Bible but what do they mean when they say ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’? How do they define their terms? When they read the Bible what do they take it to mean? (this is not merely about interpretation, mind you), etc.”

glenn20beck2c20mormon-7954788

Glenn Beck has stated that Tim LaHaye, of Left Behind fame, attempted to preach the gospel to him at which time Beck offered LaHaye his witness. Essentially, that once he accepted Jesus through Mormonism his life got turned around, no more drunkenness, etc. That was, essentially, the end of the discussion: he must really have something there. Well, what he had was a dose of Jesus. What he needs to do now is to develop a close relationship with the one true Jesus of history and the Bible and compare Mormon doctrines to the Bible’s.
Otherwise, it is reminiscent, to some extent, of when God sent Jeremiah to preach to Shiloh in order to instruct them to cease worshipping the Queen of Heaven. What was their response?

We will not listen to the message you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD! We will certainly do everything we said we would:

We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm.

In other words; things go well when we worship that which God called an abominable idol and so we will not stop. Glenn Beck has a similar outlook; things go well when he worships that which God called an abominable idol and so he does not stop.
See Roman Catholic Maryology: Mary in Roman Catholicism, part 14 – Queen of Heaven? for details.

But just what abominable idol does Glenn Beck worship? After all he believes in and uses the words “God” and “Jesus,” reads the Bible and calls himself a Christians.

Let us succinctly consider three issues: “Christian,” “God” and “Bible”:

Christians: The reason that Mormons want to be known as “Christians” is in order to fit in to the mainstream. They could be said to either be claiming to Christians with only some slight doctrinal differences or, perhaps more likely, claiming to be the real true Christians.

This is because during his first vision, his initial revelation, Joseph Smith claimed the following—although there are different accounts of his first vision this one is taken from Pearl of Great Price – Joseph Smith – History – 2:18-20:

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right-and which I should join.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them.

Thus, according to Joseph Smith, God declared that the Christian sects were all wrong, all their creeds abominations and all their professors corrupt.
Some Mormon apologists claim that “all” does not mean “all” of Christianity but only “all” sects that were available to Joseph Smith. Granting this we must note that these Christian sects held to good old fashioned traditional biblical Christian doctrines—on the main issues, the essentials. Moreover, if there was any uncorrupted Christianity anywhere on Earth, God could certainly have revealed that to Joseph Smith rather than having him start his own church which would claim to have another testament of Jesus Christ which, as it turns out, was . a testament of another Jesus Christ. In any regard, for nearly two centuries Mormons sought to differentiate themselves from the corrupt sects. Yet, now they seek unity with those corrupt sects.

See my essay Mormonism is an Offensive Religion for an elucidation of why they are offensive: meaning that they, from the get go, have been on the offence against Christianity.

God: Glenn Beck made an interesting remark about his recent gathering; that it was about the one God. Firstly, this leaves out various American non-monotheists. Ironically, this would include Mormons. I cannot tell whether Glenn Beck simply does not know Mormon theology very well, if he is playing to the mainstream who does not know Mormon theology very well or what have you. What I do know is that Mormonism is not monotheistic. Mormonism is often described as polytheistic but it may be more accurate to describe them as henotheistic, basically; belief in many gods but that only one of them should be worshipped. Actually, the Bible is monotheistic, the Book of Mormon is monotheistic, and other Mormon scriptures are monotheistic. I pointed this out to a Mormon missionary and he agreed. I then asked why, since this is the case, is Mormonism now henotheistic. His answer was all too simple: since Mormon prophets have since revealed that there are many gods, so be it. This is what happens when the biblical parameters are breached: anything goes.

In my post Jeff Durbin debates two Mormon missionaries you can hear Jeff Durbin ask what the context is of a text that is up for discussion. One Mormon asks, “Does it matter?” and continued, whilst pounding on the desk, with “Joseph Smith was prophet” and later, “the most important thing…I don’t need to know everything in the Bible…most important thing to know is truth; Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.”

Mormon theology asserts that created beings, such as humans, can become gods who copulate and give birth to created beings who can become gods who copulate and give birth to created beings who can become gods, etc. Thus, there is no knowing how many gods there are.

Bible: Mormons affirms that the Bible is the word of God, period! Period? Well, not quite. Mormon article of faith number eighth states “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” How do we know when the Bible has been accurately translated? Textual criticism, manuscript evidence, study of ancient languages, etc.? No. The issue is very simple, given the Mormon worldview: if it deviates from Mormon doctrine then it is considered not to be translated correctly with absolutely no regard to any other considerations.

Also, while they “believe the Bible to be the word of God” and “the Book of Mormon to be the word of God” Joseph Smith stated this about the Book of Mormon, “A man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book.”

Certainly much, much more could be said of these and various other theological issues. Glenn Beck may be of interest to those whose political leanings are conservative, he may be a good source for getting to know a bit about history and the founding fathers yet, when it comes to theology Christians are not to let themselves be taken in by generic references to “God.”

This juxtoposing of Mormon versus Christian/Biblical theology extends far beyond “Christian,” “God” and “Bible”; consider any Christian/Biblical doctrine and Mormonism opposes it and has their own version.

For more information about Mormon theology, the Book of Mormon and much more please see my section on Mormonism as well as the Mormonism section of my Links page

Lastly, here is a link to an interesting discussion of this issue by Issues, etc.

Dan Barker and the Alien Rape Voyeurs, part 4 of 7

Threats And Promises, Punishment And Reward:
At 49:57 into part 1 we get a taste of another argument from outrage,

The God of the Bible is blood thirsty…any system of thought that has a hell in it is not ethical and not moral.

This is merely an assertion and not a logical argument. However, well over one half of an hour later Dan Barker eventually hints at the source of his outrage.

At 25:52 into part 2 he stated:

Any ethical system that’s based on threats and promises is morally bankrupt. Christianity is based on a promise of heaven and a threat of hell. That is a morally bankrupt thing to do. Because you’re making, you’re basing your ethical things not on the inherent worth of an individual person because they are a part of your species. You’re doing it to please your daddy, you’re doing it to get points, you’re not doing it because you think I’m valuable.

Next, in order to evidence that Christians are inwardly (in their thoughts, feelings and motivations which are inaccessible to Dan Barker) motivated by “threats and promises” he shares an anecdote about conversing with a Muslim about Islam and Allah’s decrees. The Muslim stated that he was being nice to Dan Barker because “Allah commands me to be nice to you.” Then Dan Barker, based on a premise of discrediting Christian ethics by appealing to Islamic ethics, concludes by stating:

That’s what Christianity is saying, you should be nice to people because, you know, because of the reward you’re gonna get.

Indeed, the argument was premised upon Christianity’s ethics but argued from Islamic ethics-this is a non sequitur or gargantuan proportions.

Incidentally, that “Any ethical system that’s based on threats and promises is morally bankrupt” means that every law of every country on Earth is morally bankrupt since they are based on based on threats and promises.

Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor positively affirming God’s non-existence and affirming absolute materialism, see here and here

But precisely what is Dan Barker’s issue with threats and promises, heaven and hell? At 27:05 into part 2 he clarifies:

But let me ask you this: if the promise of heaven motivates you to be ethical, or to be kind to others, doesn’t that show how little you think of others? You’re not being good because of themselves [sic]. Or if the threat of hell motivates you to be kind to others, doesn’t that show you how little you think of yourself? Don’t you think of yourself as a potentially good person?
Those of us who are naturalists and secular humanists will say very simply: if you wanna be a good, kind, ethical person then, then be a good, kind, ethical person. There’s no mystery there, there’s no secret to morality. What we would say is: be good for goodness sake.

Note that Dan Barker presumes to know what motivates the world’s 2.5 billion individual Christians (as well as all who have ever lived). He has touched upon a typical fallacy committed by many atheists which boils down to: theists do good in order to gain rewards and out of fear of punishment but atheist have pure benevolent motives.

This is fallacious on many accounts and I have touched upon the topic in three of my essays:

Do Any Atheists Have Pure Motives?

The Red Light of Punishment

And partially in James Randi – the Amazing Atheist.

Ultimately, Dan Barker’s argument merely demonstrated a lack of knowledge of normative, general, orthodox, biblical, good old fashioned Christianity. Since Christianity does not hold to a works based salvation theology (soteriology), Dan Barker’s statements about good deeds being motivated by “the promise of heaven” are simply not an issue.

Dan Barker may be shocked to find out that 2,000 years ago it was Jesus who taught us to “be good for goodness sake” when He stated:

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who despitefully use you…For if you love those who love you, what thanks do you have? For sinners also love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what thanks do you have? For sinners also do the same. And if you lend to those of whom you hope to receive, what thanks do you have? For sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return. And your reward shall be great, and you shall be the sons of the Highest. For He is kind to the unthankful and to the evil (see Luke 6:27-35).

Notice the combination of worldly and otherworldly: do good because people need good done for them, do not do good only to get something back and God will still reward you even though you did good because people need good done for them and you did not do good only to get something back. This way you will have more to give.

Dan Barker may also be shocked to find out that circa 3,500 years ago it was Moses who taught us to “be good for goodness sake” when he stated:

If there is among you a poor man of one of your brothers inside any of your gates in your land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother. But you shall open your hand wide to him, and shall surely lend him enough for his need, that which he lacks. Beware that there is not a thought in your wicked heart, saying, the seventh year, the year of release, is at hand, and your eye may be evil against your poor brother, and you give him nothing.
And he may cry to the LORD against you, and it is sin to you. You shall surely give to him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God shall bless you in all your works, and in all that you put your hand to. For the poor shall never cease out of the land. Therefore, I command you saying, You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor, and to your needy, in your land (Deuteronomy 15:7-11).

The Old Testament lays out a marvelously empathetic and sympathetic system of ethics. Again, we see the worldly and otherworldly.

Note that Dan Barker refers to thinking of ourselves as potentially good people. Could this not be considered a selfish motivator for doing good? We will focus on this in the next segment.

Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com, part 6 of 6

In the previous 5 parts of our consideration of evilbible.com‘s claims as to the question of rape in the Bible we noted an unfortunate trend amongst many atheists towards un-scholarly pseudo-skepticism and an inability to condemn any action by appealing to anything but assertions of authority and outrage.
Our study of evilbible.com’s claims demonstrated that they imagined rape where there was none and that they, for some odd and yet self-servingly convenient reason, neglected to quote, cite or comment on the biblical text that is crystal clear about its views on rape.

Now, let us consider some statements that atheists have made about rape.

Dan Barker
Dan Barker, co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation repeatedly argues that nothing is absolutely immoral.

At 33:49 into part 1 (here is part 2) of his debate with Peter Payne on the topic of ethics Dan Barker claimed,

…there are no action in and of themselves are always absolutely right or wrong. It depends on the context. You cannot name an action that is always, absolutely right or wrong, I can think of an exception in any case.

Thus, keeping true to his words he argues that rape is not absolute immoral. His “reasoning” involves a hypothetical scenario in which the Earth is attacked by malevolent alien rape voyeurs from outer space.
Of course, appealing to malevolent aliens he could state that cannibalizing babies is not absolutely immoral or fill in the blank with your darkest and most malevolent fantasy is not absolutely immoral.

He may consider it a triumph of reason to state that, “I can think of an exception in any case.” But this is how criminals think-they can justify absolutely anything.

This is well in keeping with Dan Barker’s worldview and view on ethics.
During his debate with John Rankin (entitled Evolution and Intelligent Design: What are the issues?) he stated that “Darwin has bequeathed what is good” and expresses part this goodness by stating “abortion is a blessing.”
During his debate with Paul Manata, Dan Barker stated,

There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares.

He referred to Jesus as “a moral monster” and makes a point by asking and answering as to whether happens to us or a vegetable ultimately matter,

…what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won’t the Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care.

Sam Harris
Sam Harris stated,

If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, Harris explains, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.1

One can only wonder where the women’s rights groups are in response to such statements.

He also believes that rape is not only perfectly natural but that rape played a beneficial role in our evolution,

there are many things about us for which we are naturally selected, which we repudiate in moral terms. For instance, there’s nothing more natural than rape. Human beings rape, chimpanzees rape, orangutans rape, rape clearly is part of an evolutionary strategy to get your genes into the next generation if you’re a male. You can’t move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend rape as a good practice. I mean no-one would be tempted to do that; we have transcended that part of our evolutionary history in repudiating it.2

I am not certain how Sam Harris knows that chimpanzees and orangutans rape? Perhaps they do. I suppose that we would have to know that the victim was saying “No” and also have a working knowledge of chimpanzeean and orangutanian ethics.
He argued that “You can’t move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend rape as a good practice. I mean no-one would be tempted to do that.” But he just did. Actually, he defended rape as a good practice for a certain period of our evolutionary history (when was that, by the way?)

Rape was a good thing within the Darwinian scheme of life thus apparently, rape is what Darwin bequeathed as good. Or rather, was good. But may it be good again someday? Sure, why not?In parts of the world where little human tribes are isolated and have low population levels perhaps rape is still Darwinianlly acceptable. And what if population levels, in general, drop (due to plagues, nuclear war, etc.)? Apparently, rape will make a moral comeback.Sam Harris also argues thusly:

I would argue that the taboos around rape that religion has given us, have perversely made rape a very common tool of psychological oppression and war. The reason why all those women were raped in the Bosnian conflict was that it was so stigmatising in the Muslim community to be raped, that you were essentially ruining the community from within by recourse to its own taboos. This has been the practice over and over again.3

If you know anything about Sam Harris you know that he has a one word explanation for all evil everywhere and at anytime “religion” (yes, even if the evil was committed by atheists who premised their evil deeds on their particular atheism).
Apparently, if religion (God) did not proclaim rape as evil then it would not be evil. That is the point that theists are making and the point that Sam Harris denies even while virtually stating it himself. If it were not for God condemning rape the invaders of Bosnia could have raped at will and Sam Harris would have said, “there’s nothing more natural than rape.”

Thus, while Sam Harris commits an ad hominem by claiming that “religion” is discredited by evil deeds done in its name, evil deeds done in the name of Darwinian advancement are only “evil” by the quaint first world country standards de jour. Indeed, while religion can state that rape is wrong everywhere, every time atheism states that it had its day in the sun from which we all benefited.

Richard Dawkins
Ever answering any question on any topic by appealing to the evolution of the gaps, Richard Dawkins was asked about rape during an interview:

Justin Brierley (JB): If we had evolved into a society where rape was considered fine, would that mean that rape is fine?

Richard Dawkins (RD): I, I wouldn’t, I don’t want to answer that question. It, it, it’s enough for me to say that we live in a society where it’s not considered fine. We live in a society where uhm, selfishness, where failure to pay your debts, failure to reciprocate favors is, is, is regarded as [in transcribing I could not understand the next word, perhaps it was a Britishism]. That is the society in which we live. I’m very glad, that’s a value judgment, I’m very glad that I live in such a society.

(JB): When you make a value judgment don’t you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it’s good. And you don’t have any way to stand on that statement.

(RD): My value judgment itself could come from my evolutionary past.

(JB): So therefore it’s just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.

(RD): You could say that, it doesn’t in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

(JB): Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.

(RD): You could say that, yeah.4

As an example of Prof. Richard Dawkins’ skills as a logician note his roaring approval of the following “entirely right” conclusion:

As the Medawars [Paul and Jean] were entirely right to point out, the logical conclusion to the ‘human potential’ argument is that we potentially deprive a human soul of the gift of existence every time we fail to seize any opportunity for sexual intercourse. Every refusal of any offer of copulation by a fertile individual is, by this dopey ‘pro-life’ logic, tantamount to the murder of a potential child! Even resisting rape could be represented as murdering a potential baby.5

That the Medawars would make such a point is bad enough but that Prof. Richard Dawkins would not only agree but endorse such jejune notions is quite another. Although, let us be fair; this was not strictly a logical or biological point-they are both arguing in favor of the brutal murder of beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies-the Darwinian blessing of abortion.

Of course, considering the thought process which is consistent with atheistic Darwinian evolution we end up with statements such as Ingrid Newkirk’s (President of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals-PETA),

A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.

In likewise consistent and inhuman, inhumane and subhuman fashion Prof. Richard Dawkins wrote,

Does the embryo suffer? (Presumably not if it is aborted before it has a nervous system; and even if it is old enough to have a nervous system it surely suffers less than, say, an adult cow in a slaughterhouse.)…
if late-aborted embryos with nervous systems suffer – though all suffering is deplorable – it is not because they are human that they suffer. There is no general reason to suppose that human embryos at any stage suffer more than cow or sheep embryos at the same developmental stage.6

Perhaps he should watch Silent Scream.

Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer
The book, “A Natural History of Rape” was co-authored by Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer. I do not know if they are atheists per se but their views are certainly commensurate.

Craig T. Palmer

Randy Thornhill

Also being proponents of the evolution of the gaps they, in part, they answer the question “Why Do Men Rape?” thusly,

The males of most species-including humans-are usually more eager to mate than the females, and this enables females to choose among males who are competing with one another for access to them. But getting chosen is not the only way to gain sexual access to females. In rape, the male circumvents the female’s choice…evolutionary theory applies to rape, as it does to other areas of human affairs, on both logical and evidentiary grounds. There is no legitimate scientific reason not to apply evolutionary or ultimate hypotheses to rape….

Human rape arises from men’s evolved machinery for obtaining a high number of mates in an environment where females choose mates.7

Most interesting is what I will term their heavy metal mutant apologia,

Lead may account for certain cases of rape, just as mutations may.8

By “Lead” they are referring to the heavy metal which they surmise may “disrupt psychological adaptations of impulse control” to the point that they may lead to a “higher rate of criminality.” Thus, upon being placed on trial the rapist may offer the following court room defense (Greek: apologia), “Your honor I ate lead paint chips and a child and mutated into a rapist.”

Joann E. RodgersJoann Ellison Rodgers,

Director of Media Relations and Public Affairs for Johns Hopkins Medicine. For 18 years, she was a reporter, then national science correspondent for the Hearst Newspapers, winning a Lasker Award for Medical Journalism. She is president of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, former president of the National Association of Science Writers, and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She is a lecturer in the Department of Epidemiology at the Hopkins School of Public Health, a freelance writer and author of six books.

I do not know if she is an atheist, per se, but, as above, her views are quite relevant as Sam Harris virtually plagiarized her book “SEX: A Natural History” wherein she wrote,

Rape or at least rape-like acts clearly exist in many species, giving additional weight to both rape’s “natural” roots and its “value” in our biological and psychological legacy.9

Being another proponent of the evolution of the gaps Joann Rodgers also notes,

Even rape, fetishes, bondage, and other so-called aberrant sexual behaviors are almost certainly biologically predisposed, if not adaptive, and may therefore be what biologists call ‘conserved’ traits, attributes or properties useful or essential to life across all cultures and genomes.10 11

In ConclusionPhilip S. Skell, “the father of carbene chemistry,” member of the National Academy of Sciences and Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University elucidated the point about the evolution of the gaps by writing,

Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable.Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers.

When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.12

Benjamin Wiker seconds that observation by noting the following in his consideration of “Game Theory”,

By using games with fewer rules than Candy Land, the Darwinian game theorists are claiming “to uncover the fundamental principles governing our decision-making mechanisms.” We’d better take a closer look, starting with their presuppositions…The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection. Fairness exists; therefore, it must be the result of natural selection. Q.E.D.

It is always convenient to have a theory that cannot possibly be proved wrong.13

Philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in R. G. Colodny (ed.) Problems of Empiricism in Beyond the edge of certainty: Essays in contemporary science and philosophy (University of Pittsburgh series in the philosophy of science) (1965 AD), pp. 145-260) points out (emphasis added for emphasis):

The stability achieved, the semblance of absolute truth is nothing but the result of an absolute conformism. For how can we possibly test, or improve upon, the truth of a theory if it is built in such a manner that any conceivable event can be described, and explained, in terms of its principles?
The only way of investigating such all-embracing principles is to compare them with a different set of equally all-embracing principles—but this way has been excluded from the very beginning. The myth is therefore of no objective relevance, it continues to exist solely as the result of the effort of the community of believers and of their leaders, be these now priests or Nobel prize winners.

Indeed, as Charles Darwin hath bequeathed,

A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.

From here he offers a typical atheist motivation for acting “for the good of others”,

…in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts.
If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth.14

Following impulses towards the good of others is not to be done because it is ethical or even moral but in order to have people tell you, “You’re a good person!” (see here). Selfish self-gratification is the highest form of service according to a worldview which places the human as the highest being-God in your very own mirror.
As Professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett argues: the atheist, Joseph Stalin, was a theist because he told himself what to do-thus, by extension, every atheist is a theist who serves his creator to the tune of “I shall have no other gods before me!” (see this post for Prof. Daniel Dennett’s misosophy).

According to the Judeo-Christian worldview/theology; rape is always and everywhere immoral and the Bible may be quoted to this effect.

According to an absolutely materialistic worldview:

1) Rape played a very beneficial role in evolution.

2) Rape is perfectly natural.

3) Rape can be excused, explained away or blamed on mutations, lead poisoning, and Darwinian evolution run amok.

4) Rape is only considered immoral today by those who choose to agree that it is immoral today.

5) Rape is, even now, not absolutely immoral because Dan Barker and rapists “can think of an exception in any case.”

6) If rape occurs in a society which chooses to illegalize it and the rapist is not caught-they simply get away with it.

7) If the rapist gets away with it rape is of great and benevolent benefit since the rapist enjoyed him/herself. This is because if they had no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God they followed those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.

The fact of evil, such as rape, is one of the very best reasons for rejecting atheism. And as our consideration of the contents of evilbible.com have demonstrated their illogical, un-scholarly, un-skeptical, manipulative, eisegetical/isogetical handling of the issue is one of the very best reasons for rejecting evilbible.com as anything but a very valuable example of erroneous polemics-zeal without knowledge.

For more info see: Atheism and Rape – Walter Sinnott-Armstrong Elucidates

‹ Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com, part 5 of 6 up

Rape

While evilbible.com condemns what they perceived as the Bible’s approval of rape we must recall that they are merely presenting their opinions, personal preferences, assertion, upon unfounded assertion, upon unfounded assertion, and building a tel of arguments from outrage, arguments from personal incredulity, arguments for embarrassment, etc.

Now, to the relevant portions of the next text in the evilbible.com arsenal, Numbers 31:7-18,

Dan Barker and the Alien Rape Voyeurs, part 6 of 7

The Alien Rape Voyeurs:
Now we get to the aliens and rape portion of Dan Barker’s statements. Atheists have some very strange ideas about rape, at least the New Atheist such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

At 54:54 into part 2 the formal debate has ended and questions are being taken from the audience. Dan Barker was asked:

You stated that there are no actions that are absolutely wrong, such as lying, etc., that there is always an exception. When then is rape considered okay? What is the exception to this action?

Dan Barker begins his response by quoting the Bible. So as to not digress too much I have written a separate essay which, amongst other things, responds to some of his references to the Bible, please see Dan Barker – Scriptural Misinterpretations and Misapplications.

Dan Barker positively affirming God’s non-existence and affirming absolute materialism, see here and here

You may recall that Dan Barker claimed that morals are not absolute because “I can think of an exception in any case.” At 56:25 into part 2 he offers his exception to rape being absolutely immoral:

Here’s a hypothetical. And I just said it’s hypothetical. Suppose th- you, you know how ah, you know how some species like cats they like to play with mice before they kill them. I mean they have this weird thing about exaggerating the harm before they eat their meal.

Suppose there was some advanced, powerful species outside of our solar system that came to earth and it was like that. And it was torturing people. And raping women. And this, and we thought how horrible, this is really bad. And suppose this culture just for the fun of it said, “We’re gonna kill the whole species. We’re gonna kill all of you. We’re gonna show how powerful we are.”

We think, “Boy, what an amoral group” right? We’d be afraid of them. But what if they said to you ah, “Before we kill everybody off ah, we just wanna have a little more fun here, if you will rape a woman, then we will let the rest of the species go, okay? We’ll let every, we’ll just leave. If you’ll just do that one thing, and let us watch, because we’re sickos, right? Then we will, we’ll sa-, we’ll save the rest of the planet.”

Now, I know that’s not likely to happen but hypothetically something like that could happen. Nature is weird, right?

In that weird case, which we, you and I would never see in our life time, you can make an argument that although it wouldn’t be pleasant, and you wouldn’t like it, and you’d would feel really bad about yourself, you would consider that to be the moral choice.

At 58:55 into part 2, just after having stated the above, Dan Barker asks the man who posed the question about rape, “Let me ask you, would you do it?” The man responds, “No.”
To which Dan Barker responds, “You wouldn’t do it, you would kill all of us?” The man responds, “I would be ethical and those aliens would be unethical and that’s too bad for them.” To which Dan Barker further states, “And you would kill all of us and your children, that’s highly unethical. You would have a chance to save the human race and you would blow that chance.”

A few things to mention here: I am quite sure that there are many highly qualified thinkers that could do a thorough job of rationally dissecting Dan Barker’s comment about aliens and rape. However, I think that if he had asked me whether I would commit the rape I would respond thusly (you have to imaging it: I would be slack jawed with my eyes as wide open as I could get them):

“Uuuuuuummmmmmmmm, yeeeeaaaaah, I’m gonna base my ethics upon the real world and leave you to you sci-fi contemplations of alien rape voyeurs. Rape has always been, is now, and will always be absolutely immoral!”

Please forgive me, I am not certain that any more than that needs to be stated. Imagine actually sitting around spending your time thinking up ways of claiming that rape is moral. I do not know what it is about New Atheist’s fascination with rape but even more so with aliens.