Author: Ken Ammi

It is very easy to pick on the orthodox-fundamentalists-conservatives but when it comes to authentic Christianity, liberalism is a danger. For example, a friend and I went to a lecture by Muslims about Islam. This lecture took place at a Christian church; St. Michael and all Angels Episcopal Church – Alb. NM.

It was quite a seen; the Muslim apologists were expounding Islam’s virtues but some Coptic Christians were in the audience and were pointing out that they had first hand experience about Islam, having lived in Egypt where Islam is not spiked with tolerance, as it must be in the USA. The liberal church members actually started yelling at the Coptic Christians, telling them to sit down and be quite. Someone actually yelled out “Stop him!” as if the Coptic was robbing a bank. Then a self appointed liberal spokesman said that they did not care about what the Coptic Christians had to say; you know, little things like persecution of Christians by Muslims and shameful treatment of women. He explained that we were here to learn what the Muslims had to say; “Their truth” is exactly how he put it (see Is Truth True?).

The basic message that the Muslims had was that Muhammad was the final prophet and the Qur’an was the final revelation from God. They claimed that the Bible prophecies Muhammad and that you could buy books from them that would explain the prophecies.

After the lecture we had some discussions with the church members who seemed to use the phrase, “We don’t take the Bible literally” as a mantra (see How do you read the Bible?).

Why did we refer to Christianity’s Dangerously Liberal Side?

Put the whole picture together; this is such a liberal church that its members don’t know, and or, don’t believe orthodox-Biblical doctrines.
Next, their liberal pastor invites Muslims to preach to the church, without a single word in response, defense or clarification.Finally, the Muslims teach the liberal Christians that the very same Bible that they do not understand nor really believe in, is prophesying the founder of Islam, God’s final and greatest revelation.This is a recipe for disaster; it is a situation that is tailor made to have ignorant Christians embrace Islam (keep in mind that liberals love the underdog, at least allegedly so).

What Christians must also understand is that the Qur’an teaches that Trinitarians are hell bound sinners whose only hope of salvation is conversion to Islam-Surah 5:72-73. The Muslims, understandably, came to preach salvation to Christians-what an odd state of affairs.

This essay is not intended to be a technical manual on how to determine context. Rather, it is meant to demonstrate two examples of misinformation that is being used to demean the Bible. One is a case of lack of citation in which a quote is stated or a general comment is made which is claimed to come from the Bible but no citation is given. The other is a charge of a Biblical contradiction and a demonstration of how easy it can be to find the facts of the matter.

No Citation:
Steve Parker wrote a beautiful book titled Science Discoveries Isaac Newton and Gravity. This book comes with many color images as well as some wonderful wood cut illustrations from yesteryear. Mr. Parker writes,

“Newton was brought up in an atmosphere of change. At the start of the 17th century, the English politician and essayist Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) had called for a new approach to scientific theory based on factual evidence rather than belief. Weight was given to his ideas by the work of Galileo, who in 1632 showed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, as the Bible stated, but that it went around the Sun.”1

Those who know the Bible will instantly know that this is utterly false, but those who do not know the Bible should still detect a red flag. What are the common reactions to such an occurrence? One could think-that’s interesting I did not realize that the Bible stated that. Another reaction could be to think-so the Bible states that, fantastic, more fuel to pour on the fires of my unbelief! Finally, there is the red flag approach-why is there no citation to that comment, where does the Bible state that?

A blanket statement without a citation can go a long way and be useful to ones agenda. The problem is that it is poor writing and should always send up a big red flag, be it a Biblical or any other kind of quote or alleged statement.

What now? One could leave it at that and go on believing that a beautiful book about science must have presented accurate information. The antagonistic unbeliever could rejoice in this and the unlearned believer could be shaken. How many people on either side would research whether or not the statement is accurate? A person without Biblical knowledge yet, who actually wanted to be honest in their understanding of the issue would be overwhelmed by picking up a Bible and finding themselves confronted by sixty-six books in which one is searching for one single statement; the old, needle in the hay stack. Thus, the problem with, and possible dishonesty of, failing to cite a quotation or statement.

The fact is that the Bible states no such thing but how do you prove a negative? Well, we could quote the whole Bible and you could see that it states no such thing. A person could ask a knowledgeable Christian and believe what they say on the matter. One could also use a concordance and look up the word Sun, Earth, center, universe, etc.

It is very hard to see where someone came up with the idea that the Bible states that the Earth is the center of the universe. We can understand why an antagonist would state that the Bible includes obviously ignorant and erroneous things and that this attack may not be based on any real information, not based on an actual statement. But is there anything in the Bible that might be able to be manipulated in order to make it seem as if it is stating that the Earth is the center of the universe? The book we quoted makes no such attempt, it merely makes a dogmatic statement without a citation nor quotation. The only thing we could come up with (since there is no such statement) is the following which refers to the heavens and the firmament,

“Their line has gone out through all the Earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the Sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat” (Psalm 19:4-6).

Apparently, this statement could be miSunderstood to mean that the Sun makes a circuit around the Earth. However, note carefully that the verse does not state this and it would actually be very ignorant, scientifically-astronomically speaking, to think that a reference to the Sun’s movement must mean that it moves around the Earth; one would have to presuppose such a connection. We submit that the Bible is stating something that is very astronomically advanced.
What the verse does state is that the Sun makes a circuit from one end of the heavens to the other. The Earth revolves around the Sun, the Sun travels around the galaxy and the galaxy takes its journey throughout the universe.
Thus, the Sun does make a circuit. That this is what the Bible means may be denied by the skeptic because there is no way that those ignoramuses of ancient days could have known that. Of course, that is just the point, maybe they did not or could not have known it but God knew it and He inspired the Bible.

Yet, taken at its most literal level the writer of Psalm 19 is merely stating that when we look up from the Earth the Sun rises on one side and sets on the other. If Psalm 19 was meant to be an astrological textbook we would have some problems. But we use the term the Sun set and rose as a natural part of our speech but the Sun does not set and rise-rather, the Earth revolves. Yet, our language is still accurate because it is a mere description of our vantage point.

What else does the Bible state about the Earth?
While some ancient cultures believed that the Earth was on the backs of elephants, turtles or was being held up by Atlas, the Bible refers to God as, “He who hangs the Earth on nothing” (Job 26:7).

The Bible referred to God as, “He who sits above the circle of the Earth” (Isaiah 40:22) not the flat plain of the Earth. The Earth is defined as circular in its form. I think I recall reading somewhere that scientists have discovered that the Earth is round. In discussing this with a friend, he stated that maybe the people back when this was written thought that the Earth was flat but disc shaped.

I reasoned that the beauty of it is that regardless of the subjective understanding of a particular time and place, we see that the Biblical text is correct in stating that the Earth is circular, we understand what this means. Likewise with the verse regarding the Sun making a circuit. It may be that some people believed that the Earth is the center of the universe and they may have believed that the Bible backed up their claim. But the Bible states no such thing and the Sun does make a circuit.

Dr. Walter Lammerts has written,

“Much has been made of the presumed fact that until Copernicus (1473) published his De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium, the church taught that the Sun goes around the Earth. Actually it was the Scientists who taught this beginning as far back as Hipparchus (160 B.C.). Ptolemy (127-141 A.D.) refined this concept and for over 1200 years it was taught by Scientists as the explanation of the motions of the planets and the Sun. Theologians merely accepted this teaching of science.”2

Skepticism is a good thing as long as it is honest skepticism which is not only interested in proving everything wrong as in pessimism or cynicism.

The Contradiction:
Great Events of Bible Times is a beautiful book with consists of large glossy pages, various illustrations, computer generated geographical maps, photos of ancient artifacts and paintings. One of the book’s consultants is the well-known and respected Professor B. M. Metzger; George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Emeritus, at Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey. The other consultants are Dr. David Goldstein, Curator of Hebrew Books and Manuscripts at the British Library and John Ferguson, MA, BD, FIAL, formerly President of Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham, England. Combined these men have authored and or edited some eighty books. Besides the consultants, the book has eight writers plus an editor, assistant editor and managing editor.
Who would not be intimidated and who would dare to question the information contained in such a publication?
There is a section of the book entitled David and Goliath, which discusses various aspects of the Biblical story. David’s killing of Goliath is found in 1st Samuel 17:50-51. The writer of this section states,

“in a little-known passage of the Bible, the credit for killing Goliath is actually given to somebody completely different – David’s champion Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19).”3

Notice that while the story of David and Goliath is well known it may be because of a little-known passage that you are not aware of a Biblical contradiction. Or perhaps there is another reason to insinuate that a Bible verse could be referred to as little-known. If the verse in 2nd Samuel is little-known then 1st Chronicles 20:4 must be just as obscure because it states the same thing as 2nd Samuel 21:19. But what is there to know since we have already been told that in one place the Bible states that David killed Goliath and in another it states that it was Elhanan? The case is closed isn’t it; we have a clear case of a biblical contradiction.

I suppose that since it is little-known we should probably see what it says. Here it is in the New King James Version,

“Again there was war at Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”

At first glance it appears that there is no contradiction since the verse states that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. However, as any good Bible student, and any good skeptic, should know that the italics means that the word or words that are italicized are not in the original language but were added by the translators for the sake of clarity or language understandability. And so it now seems that the contradiction stands because removing the italics the verse reads, “_Elhanan the son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite_” Indeed this is just how the New American Standard Bible 1995 ed. renders it,

“There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”

This is a case in which looking at one single verse is not enough context and so we must expand our research. Let us look at 2nd Samuel 21 but this time verses 15 through 22,

“When the Philistines were at war again with Israel, David and his servants with him went down and fought against the Philistines; and David grew faint. Then Ishbi-Benob, who was one of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose bronze spear was three hundred shekels, who was bearing a new sword, thought he could kill David. But Abishai the son of Zeruiah came to his aid, and struck the Philistine and killed him.

Then the men of David swore to him, saying, ‘You shall go out no more with us to battle, lest you quench the lamp of Israel.’ Now it happened afterward that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob. Then Sibbechai the Hushathite killed Saph, who was one of the sons of the giant. Again there was war at Gob with the Philistines, here Elhanan the son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant. So when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea, David’s brother, killed him. These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.”

This is how it breaks down:

Abishai killed Ishbi-Benob.Sibbechai killed Saph.Elhanan killedGoliath.

Jonathan killed a man of great stature.

The bottom line of this issue is that “These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.” Thus, the answer to the alleged contradiction is that Goliath had four sons and one of them was named Goliath. In our modern language we would call him Goliath the second or Goliath, Jr. Note that before David confronted Goliath, Sr. “_he chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in a shepherd’s bag, in a pouch which he had_” (1st Samuel 17:40). This is hypothesis but it may be that David chose five stones because Goliath’s four sons were hanging around and in case they joined the fight David had the five stones one for Goliath and one for each son.

This also comes to show why the italicized statement in the NKJV or any other translations are to be taken with a grain of salt. In this case the italics told us that the man that Elhanan killed was an unnamed brother of Goliath but according to the context that we have just been researching, this man was not the brother of Goliath but was Goliath, Sr.’s son.

Two Quick Examples of Erroneous Bible “helps”
A translation known as The Amplified Bible uses parenthesis in order to amplify the meaning of a word and they use brackets for the same purpose as the NKJV uses italics. They translate John 4:27 as,

“Just then His disciples came and they wondered (were surprised, astonished) tofind Him talking with a woman [a married woman]. However, not one of them asked

Him, What are You inquiring about? or What do you want? or, Why do You

speak with her?”

The insert, in brackets, states that she was “a married woman,” the problem is that the very same translation renders a previous verses, John 4:16-17, as,

“At this, Jesus said to her, Go, call your husband and come back here. The womananswered, I have no husband. Jesus said to her, You have spoken truly in saying,

I have no husband.”

The “help” said that she was married but the text said the she is not.

Another example comes from The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which is published by The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society a.k.a. Jehovah’s Witnesses. The errors in this translation are numerous, obvious and well know. Apparently, wherever the text of the Bible caused conflict to Jehovah’s Witness doctrine they manipulated the text of Scripture until it would conform with their beliefs. They did this until they came up with their own translation (while keeping the names of their language experts secret). This translation renders Colossians 1:15-17 as,

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because bymeans of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the Earth,the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thronesor lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been createdthrough him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of

him all [other] things were made to exist.”

Note the insertion of the word “other” four times in two verses (were have not included them but there are also eight footnotes in these two verses). The point is all too clear; the text is teaching that Jesus created all things and is before all things. Since the Witnesses do not believe this they simply insert the word “other” in order to not simply assist our understanding of the text as it is but in order to radically change what the text is telling us. The four insertions of a word and the eight footnotes come to show how problematic the actual text of the Bible is to the Witnesses and demonstrates to what lengths they are willing to go in order to protect their preconceived notions.

“But remember, dear friends, that the apostles of our Master, Jesus Christ, told us this would happen: ‘In the last days there will be people who…make a religion of their own whims and lusts‘” (Jude v. 17-18, The Message trans.)

We quote the following exchange from an NBC Dateline with Stone Phillips presentation entitled Secrets to the Code. Our reason for quoting it is in order to demonstrate just how far some people will go in reading their own preconceived notions into the text of scripture.

Margaret Starbird: “I think they were a couple. I think he found her irresistible.”
Narrator: “Author Margaret Starbird, whose controversial research on Mary Magdalene is cited in The Davinci Code, says there’s no need to look to art for clues of an intimate relationship between Mary and Jesus. All you have to do, she says, is read the New Testament, it’s right there in the Book of John.”
Margaret Starbird: “When Mary Magdalene comes to the garden to mourn for Jesus and to anoint him, for his final anointing, and finds him resurrected in the garden she is overjoyed.”
Narrator: “Before Jesus ascends to heaven Mary reaches out to him and he tells her, ‘Do not touch me.'”
Margaret Starbird: “He’s saying I can’t stay with you now and she’s trying to hold on, it’s not just a touch it’s an embrace. If she weren’t married to him she wouldn’t of dreamed of touching him.”

It is then told that she relies on Gnostic texts such as The Gospel of Phillip, which is a Gnostic work of the late third century-circa 250 years after Jesus died. For conservative Biblical scholars it is important to get as close to the event that was recorded as possible. For liberal Biblical scholars it is important to get as far away from the event as possible hopefully reaching such a distance in time that what is written helps them to besmirch the text of scripture, the more these texts distort the person and ministry of Jesus Christ, the better. Upon these works of fantasy they bestow near infallibility.

The Gospel of Phillip is so poorly represented by manuscript evidence (or lack thereof) that there are holes all over it, literally missing text. What is being referred to in the NBC Dateline presentation is section #63 of that work. Note all of the brackets and ellipses points in the text, which represent missing and reconstructed (guessed at) text, “And the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene. […loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her […].”1
Another translation takes the liberty of filling in the gaps in the following way, “And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more then all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth.”2

The obvious question is, why choose to insert the word mouth into the text instead of cheek or hand? That is the question, the answer being pure conjecture such as, perhaps it was to make it seem as if there is more going on than there really is. However, this whole discussion is secondary to the fact that we are dealing with a text that was written hundreds of years after Jesus died by someone who never knew Him personally. But what if Jesus did kiss Mary? There were, and are still, many culture in which it is perfectly normal to kiss people frequently. Someone you are meeting for the first time, and every time you greet each other and depart company, it is likewise perfectly normal for men to kiss each other.

In glorifying these texts one publication states,

“These books are rich in cosmogonies and anthropogonies. They contain apocalyptic visions and secret scrolls of Jesus’ life and sayings. The magnificent Gospel of Truth and Gospel of Thomas add greatly to the information provided by the New Testament.”3

The wondrous Gospel of Thomas, a fragment of which was dated to 200 AD, contains such inspirational statements such as is found in #114,

“Simon Peter said to them, ‘Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.’ Jesus said, ‘I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.'”

This sort of sexist concept is utterly foreign to the true Peter, the true Jesus, and the true Gospels in general. In the true Gospels salvation is not based on sex-change operations of any sort. The Gospel of Truth is likewise of a late date, having been written about 150 years after Jesus died.

All of the apocryphal Gnostic Gospels have a few things in common: they were all written much later than even the latest New Testament book, they were all written long after the Apostles died; they all contain doctrines that betray their late authorship since they include teachings that developed in the second to fourth centuries. Comparing the time of the event to the time of the writing, the time of the writing to the time of the earliest manuscript, the number of manuscript and many other signs of authenticity these Gospels fall far, far short of the reliability of the New Testament texts. As stated before, the liberal scholars appear to prefer these, not because they are superior in any way but, because they allow the New Testament to be besmirched, albeit in an utterly unviable manner.

The NBC Dateline presentation ends with a demonstration of the extreme difference between facts and liberal scholarship’s fantasy:

Stone Phillips: “Is there any historical evidence that Jesus fathered any children?”
Prof. Bart D. Ehrman, Ph.D.: “No, there’s not a scrap of historical evidence that Jesus fathered a child.”
Prof. Ben Witherington, III, Ph.D.: “No evidence whatsoever.”
Prof. Karen L. King, Ph.D.: “There’s no evidence at all.”

Reading one’s own preconceived notions into the text (in this case in a way that would interest Sigmund Freud) versus letting the text speak for itself and or relying on historical fact is the difference between real scholarship and very popular fiction.

Forget the issue of the Earth revolving around the Sun, some atheists think that the universe revolves around them. Enter Rob Sherman who sued to persecute thought crimes.

“‘It’s good, it’s what I wanted,’ Sherman said. He said the law was designed to unconstitutionally ‘proselytize Christianity to a captive audience’ of school children’_Sherman said Thursday he would work with ‘friendly legislators’ to reverse the law.”1

On his own website Rob Sherman posted an announcement that his daughter is “to receive prestigious John Peter Altgeld Award this Saturday from the Chicago Tribune McCormick Freedom Museum and the Newberry Library for her vigorous and successful defense of the First Amendment in the ‘Moment of Silence’ lawsuit.” [bold in original].

The Newberry Library posted the following announcement:

“In the spirit of courageous advocacy of freedom of speech, the John Peter Altgeld Award will be presented to **** Sherman, a student who challenged her high school’s implementation of the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act. Her initial lawsuit resulted in an injunction from U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman prohibiting the law’s continued observation at Buffalo Grove High School, then expanded into a class-suit allowing other students and school districts statewide to participate. Ultimately, on May 29, 2008, Gettleman applied the injunction to the entire State of Illinois while the constitutionality of the law is considered.
‘This year’s Altgeld Award honors young people who stand up for their First Amendment freedoms in the schools they attend even when it is unpopular,’ said Shawn Healy, resident scholar, McCormick Freedom Musuem [sic]. ‘Sherman represents the noble cause of civic activism that will without doubt inspire students across Illinois to stand up for what they believe is right, and to be active participants in this constitutional democracy'” [I am not publishing her name since she is a 14 yr old child].

Rob Sherman

Perhaps the problem is that the law was entitled, “The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act.” This title is a big red flag that attracts atheist activists like so many rabid bulls. The latest measure sought to make the previously optional moment of silence required (not optional or required for individual students but for school districts). The new measure stated that “the period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise” and does not propose penalties for incompliant schools.

Please understand that Rob Sherman and the child whom he is indoctrinating into atheist activism “contend that the law providing for ‘silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day’ runs afoul of the constitutional separation of church and state.”2 Did you understand that? Allowing for prayer is unconstitutional. Allowing a student to pray silently and privately is illegal. But what is the bottom line of the atheist complaint? You guessed it to squeltch the vast right-wing-Christian-conspiracy. Rob Sheman stated, “What we object to is Christians passing a law that requires the public school teacher to stop teaching during instructional time, paid for by the taxpayers, so that Christians can pray.”3

The child stated that her intention was, “I just don’t want my education to be interrupted.”4 This is certainly a virtuous goal. But I wonder, will she sue to make lunch illegal? After all, it interrupts her education.

I heard Rob Sherman and his daughter on the Michael Medved radion program and she was virtually unable to answer the most basic questions surrounding the issue. “But she is a mere child,” you say? Indeed, the is being used as a hand pupper through which the father expresses his prejudice.

Rob Sherman, apparently utilizing some form of Vulcan mind-meld to determine the immaterial thoughts and motivations of others, stated, “The whole purpose for changing the law is to get more prayer in the public schools and everybody knows it.”5

Astonishingly, “The ACLU_has declined to participate because it believes the Illinois statute is not legally objectionable.” Sure, the ACLU generally too busy protecting terrorists and pedophiles while attacking the Boy Scouts and the Ten Commandments but if they are passing up a chance to silence silence, to silence silent private prayer in a public governmental facility, then you know that something is very wrong with the lawsuit. In fact, Rob Sherman has already filed lawsuits seeking to ban Boy Scout meetings at public schools.6 “[ACLU of Illinois] Spokesman Ed Yohnka declined to explain the reasoning beyond noting the statute’s dual focus on meditation or prayer. A moment of silence during the school day is not legally objectionable, Yohnka said. A moment of prayer is. The legal distinction, however thin, is significant.”

The reason for stating that atheism is anthropocentric is that in rejecting God atheist have placed themselves as the highest being in the universe. The individual atheist sees themselves as the very height of creation, not only because there is no higher being but because they consider humanity the very pinnacle of evolution. Thus, in cases such as Rob Sherman’s, we perceive that the atheists sees any and every expression of religiosity as a personal affront. Certainly, he would argue that kinds can be silently prayerful on their own time and away from government property. But the point is that the very concept of a moment of silence, in which the kids are free to pray, think about the day that is ahead of them, or listen to the crickets chirping in their heads, is unconstitutional because kids might be praying on public property.

Part of me is actually a lot more empathetic to his cause since the premise, “The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act” is just asking for trouble. Yet, the entire concept of prayer, private or group, being illegal/unconstitutional is a recent convention. Consider that Thomas Jefferson, Mr. Separation of Church and State himself, attended Christian church services in the Capitol building which is something he did this through his two terms as president. Apparently, modern day liberals understand Thomas Jefferson’s concept of Separation of Church and State better than Jefferson himself understood.

The bottom line is that Rob Sherman wants to ensure that, in the public schools, the Christian God (to whatever extent He is “there”) is replaced by nothing-the god of atheism.

It seems that recent events have taught us quite a few important lessons.

I am referring to:

The murder of Stephen Tyrone Johns by the “atheist” James von Brunn (some term his name James van Brunn).

The murder to George Tiller by the “Christian” Scott P. Roeder.

The murder of William Long by the “Muslim” Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad.

And the media coverage and the internet hullabaloo including the statements of William F. Harrison.

Let us begin with the media coverage since it presented an interesting progression:
1) Scott P. Roeder murdered George Tiller and, being labeled a “Christian,” gave occasion to make reference to the American Christian Taliban, the right-wing extremists and such.

2) Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad murder Private William Long and, being labeled a “Muslim,” shifted the focus form the American Christian Taliban to focus on religion as dangerous in general. This is even though this story has been very, very downplayed both by Barack Obama’s administration and the media in general.
Still, we get to besmirch “religion”-hoorah!

3) James von Brunn murdered Stephen Tyrone Johns and, being labeled an “atheist,” lead to_
Well, certainly no disparaging remarks about atheists or atheism in the media. In fact, you may be hard pressed to hear him referred to as such.

These events brought to mind something that I have been thinking about recently and that was the 1971 AD Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford University psychological prison experiments.A prison atmosphere was set up and students played the roles of guards and prisoners. The surprising results were that since within a mere six days, including a riot on the second day, the guards had sadistically traumatized the prisoners and the experiment was terminated. The 24 middle class volunteers had been considered the most psychologically stable and healthy of the applicants.

Prof. Philip Zimbardo played the part of the superintendent and a research assistant was the warden.

Though various interpretations of the data have been proposed, one interesting aspect is that of the effects of authority: a-ethical authority (the only restraint placed on the guards what against physical abuse). Absolute freedom corrupts absolutely and it appears that anyone “atheist,” “Muslim” or “Christian” is subject to succumb.This seems to be so whether they consider themselves to have authority bequeathed by the struggle to survive as the fittest or by some god.Christianity has a basis upon which to restrain sadistic behavior.

Islam has some yet, the doctrine of abrogation may be problematic in claiming Qur’anically prescribed restraint.1

Atheism offers none whatsoever-anything goes; malevolence or benevolence are equally up for grabs.

Oh, right, I know: James von Brunn did not do what he did based on reason but was much more like a religious person and he, an atheist, was even a theist-as per Daniel Dennett’s claims that the atheist Joseph Stalin was.
Yes, the Sam Harris sect’s dogma strikes again: the one word answer to all of the world’s problems is “religion,” any atheist who commits malicious acts is excommunicated and also labeled as being too much like a religious person-nice try.

This brings us to a piece of illogic that has been floating about on the internet for some time (since 2002 AD) written a “Dr.” William F. Harrison. It has alternately been posted as “Militant Religious Fundamentalism” and “9/11, Terrorism And Militant Religious Fundamentalism” (etc.?).

“Dr.” William F. Harrison is involved in the multibillion dollar money machine as an abortion provider. Some versions of his article have his opening line as “As a physician who openly provides abortion for my patients” and some “As a Gynecologist who_” Some versions have certain details that differ from others as well. Yet, the overall point is worth considering as the article is a good study in hypocrisy.

“Dr.” William F. Harrison makes his living by murdering beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies in painful and brutal manners. Yet, like others of his “profession” and their supporters they complain about opposition. Some of these complaints are quite valid as, for example, the recent with the murder to George Tiller evidences bad theology gone worse-these issues are to be dealt with judiciously and litigiously.

“Dr.” William F. Harrison sought to point out where fundamentalism goes wrong and why it is so very dangerous. He is at least kind enough to refer to the Ku Klux Klan as being “ostensibly Christian” and goes on to write:

Militant religious fundamentalism, whether Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or of some splinter sect origin, presents the greatest threat to peace and security in the world today. Fundamentalists seem to share certain widely recognized characteristics and attitudes. They are certain that they, and only they, possess “The Truth.” They all cite an external source for that “Truth”: religious dogma, the Bible or similar sacred texts, or a charismatic leader. They adhere to a good vs. evil belief system, all black or all white with no shades of gray – an “us versus them” mindset_

Fundamentalists usually express a justification for violence to oppose what they perceive as evil or to support what they “know” to be the good and true. They reject efforts to accommodate to inevitable social change and moral ambiguity_

They are authoritarian, self-righteous, and zealously oppose any critical or analytical thinking which might alter their attitudes since reasonable doubt and a healthy skepticism are among their greatest sins_

But it is only when religious fundamentalism is wedded to a militant and tyrannical agenda used by a ruthlessly ambitious political figure or party that it becomes truly dangerous to dissenting individuals and to the society within which it might flourish_

This is not an attack on religion_But if it is read as a rebuke of militant, exclusivist, hostile and violent or violence promoting religious bigots, of those who have just enough religion to kindle sectarian hatreds, but whose faith is not nearly sufficient to quicken love and respect for others simply because of their humanity, this is exactly how I meant it_

a struggle between those who promote reason, tolerance, freedom, and the basic human dignity of the individual, and religious fundamentalists who proclaim and follow lives committed to intolerance of the religious beliefs of others and a slavish devotion to a particular religious superstition_

Militant fundamentalists too often have demonstrated over hundreds of years a willingness to “kill or convert” those who subscribe to differing belief systems.

Clearly, this is one sided hypocritical malarkey. Why? Because he is doing exactly that which he besmirches.

Read it this way:

Abortionists seem to share certain widely recognized characteristics and attitudes. They are certain that they, and only they, possess “The Truth” that abortion is a virtue or as per Dan Barker, “a blessing.” They all cite an external source for that “Truth”: cultural dogma, evolutionary biology texts, or a charismatic scientist. They adhere to a good vs. evil belief system, all black or all white with no shades of gray – an “us versus them” mindset: the abortionists are right and everyone else is wrong_

Abortionists usually express a justification for the violence that they commit, for money, in support of what they “know” to be the good and true. They reject efforts to accommodate to inevitable social change, moral absolutes and the right to life_

They are authoritarian, self-righteous, and zealously oppose any critical or analytical thinking which might alter their attitudes since reasonable doubt and a healthy skepticism are among their greatest sins and would get in the way of the multibillion dollar money machine_

But it is only when abortion is wedded to a militant and tyrannical agenda used by a ruthlessly ambitious political figure or party that it becomes truly dangerous to dissenting individuals and to the society within which it might flourish. Such as the agenda of Planned Parenthood which was established upon racist premises, the agenda of turning “women’s rights” into ensuring no rights for the babies, the politics of the abortion movement or the Chinese forced abortion policy_

This is a rebuke of militant, exclusivist, hostile and violent or violence promoting abortionists bigots, of those who have just enough “pro-choice” sentiments to kindle sectarian hatreds, but whose activism is not nearly sufficient to quicken love and respect for human babies simply because of their humanity, this is exactly how I meant it_

a struggle between those who promote true reason, tolerance, freedom, and the basic human dignity, even of human babies, of the individual, and abortionist fundamentalists who proclaim and follow lives committed to actual intolerance of the pro-life beliefs of others and a slavish devotion to a particular abortionists position_

Abortionists too often have demonstrated over hundreds of years a willingness to “kill” babies for money and declare themselves saints and those who argue for life as sinners.

Obviously, pop-culture, the media and internet personalities prefer thoughtless gut reactions, easy generic targets and emotive assertions but the fact is that, there is a lot more to it than that.

Some years ago I was very troubled, yet not surprised, by two articles published by the Jewish Bulletin of North California. One article is entitled, “Messianics use survivors in latest ads, enraging Jews” (4-27-01) the other, “Meditation deepens Judaism for Makor Or participants” (6-8-01). These two articles are a perfect (perfectly sad) example of the manner in which some Jews are being encouraged to tackle issues, a manner that is being adopted by many people and thus becoming all too common in our relativistic / syncretistic society.

The first article is a disapproving report on a video entitled Survivor Stories that the organization Jews for Jesus has produced. The video features seven Jewish holocaust survivors telling their stories about how they came to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The other article praises a combination of Zen Buddhist meditation and Jewish worship.

On The One Hand:
Generally speaking, it is common to find an attitude within Judaism which states that a Jewish person (born to a Jewish mother, or properly converted) can be Jewish even without practicing Judaism. A person can be completely secular and still be Jewish. A person can be agnostic and still be Jewish. And yes, a person can be an atheist and still be Jewish. But if a Jewish person believes that Jesus is the Messiah, that person is in no way shape or form any longer Jewish. They have been trapped by a cult and out of ignorance have renounced Judaism. The two articles are a perfect example of this sort of two-sided viewpoint (these points were evidenced in my essay: Jewish and Christian? Is Messianic Judaism Possible?).

No Jew in their right mind would confront a Jewish holocaust survivor and attack them with the usual arsenal of arguments such as “You’re not a real Jew. You are ignorant of Judaism. You are betraying your people!” Forgoing the wise saying, “Don’t kill the messenger if you don’t like the message,” the article states, “Plenty in the Jewish community are fuming-not at the message but at its source: Jews for Jesus.”

Jewish holocaust survivors deserve our utmost respect and therefore, generally Jewish organizations would personally criticize them. Rather, they will state that the survivors have a right to say what they wish while the Jewish organizations have the right to censor the forum of their message. The article is also peppered with affirmations of the First Amendment, the politically correct mantra, and so Jews for Jesus is besmirched for giving the survivors the ability to have their message heard.

Holocaust survivor Marion Parkhurst who survived Bergen-Belsen1 states,

Before you dismiss my beliefs you should hear my story_My decision to embrace Jesus came only after many years of soul searching and study. All I ask is that you hear my story and those of several other remarkable Jews who have suffered greatly and now truly believe in Jesus.

My people, the Jews, are so very articulate and intelligent and have always considered illiteracy a sin, lest one not be able to study the Torah. What is extremely sad is that these same people are now being encouraged by publications such as the Jewish Bulletin to respond to extremely important issues out of pure irrational emotionalism.

The article is peppered with emotionally charged statements such as, “fuming,” “cheap shot,” “tasteless and offensive,” “a new low,” “shameful and disgusting,” “very low,” “falling prey,” “very vulnerable,” “this depressed me so much,” “Just when you think they’ve gone too far_they pull something out of their hats that’s even worse.” The few arguments that attempt to go beyond emotionalism fall far short of being reasonable.

Rabbi Doug Kahn (executive director, Jewish Community Relations Council) stated,

Logically one cannot believe that the messiah has not yet come, as traditional Jews do, and that he also has come, as Christians believe_One can be a Jew who converted to Christianity_The concern that has always existed is that [Jews for Jesus tries] to distort that fundamental impossibility that one can be both a Jew and a Christian at the same time.

This is very logical on the surface and only on the surface. It must be understood that Rabbinic Judaism means that interpretations and emphasis have a potential of changing from generation to generation as the Rabbis determine Judaism’s doctrines. Maybe we cannot logically be Christians and follow the doctrines of modern Rabbinic Judaism. But we know that the religion of God as prescribed in the Tanakh points to the Messiah Jesus.
Jews for Jesus does not distort the assumed impossibility that one can be both a Jew and a Christian at the same time. Let us consider what Jewish religious law has to say on this issue. The Encyclopedia Judaica 3:211 states,

In Jewish religious law, it is technically impossible for a Jew (born to a Jewish mother or properly converted to Judaism) to change his religion. Even though a Jew undergoes the rites of admission to another religious faith and formally renounces the Jewish religion he remains-as far as the Halakah is concerned-a Jew, albeit a sinner (Sanh. 44a)_For the born Jew, Judaism is not a matter of choice_in the technical halakhic sense, apostasy is impossible.

Such sentiments were evidenced in my aforementioned essay Jewish and Christian? Is Messianic Judaism Possible?

I have no problem being called a sinner by the Jewish community yet, as we saw here, Jewish religious law has no problem calling me a Jew even if individual Jews choose to act and speak against their own Jewish law which they claim to uphold and admit is still binding.

One holocaust survivor who has not accepted Jesus states,

if Jewish children who spent the war in hiding with Christian families chose to remain the religion of their rescuers, it was not for him to pass judgment. But since that was not the case for any of those in the video, he said, the tactics used by Jews for Jesus in this case were “shameful and disgusting.”

A narrow qualification for acceptability is offered and since the requirement is not met the true stories are rejected. Why is it acceptable for scared, suffering children to convert while it is not acceptable for a grown person to convert “after many years of soul searching and study.” This gentleman did pass judgment by discrediting the very life stories of seven survivors merely because they did not meet his subjective criteria for authenticity.

While the article admits, “The video is like many documentaries that feature survivors” it is considered a scandalous video because the survivors cannot be discredited. Rabbi H. David Teitelbaum (executive director, Board of Rabbis of Northern California) stated, “They have every right to publicize their organization but to use Holocaust survivors is a cheap shot.” Why then is it acceptable to use the Holocaust to publicize the Jewish spirit, survival, hope and strength? And why then is it acceptable to use the Holocaust to raise money for Jewish organizations and synagogues?

One person stated, “Religion ought to reach towards people’s hopes and aspirations, not their doubts and fears.” What could be more positive, hopeful and inspiring than the stories of people who were hunted down like animals by a cruel, well numbered, well armed predator, and yet survive and have a belief in God which is sure and firm, the same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The life verse of the Jewish-Christian may just be,

you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name (Isaiah 63:16).

On The Other Hand:
The article on Zen Buddhist meditation and Judaism is the exact opposite of the one about Jews for Jesus. It tells of Makor Or, a Jewish meditation center of San Francisco’s Congregation Beth Sholom.
One of the two leaders of the center was the former abbot of the San Francisco Zen Center. The Makor Or project was funded by a grant from The Nathan Cummings Foundation which is “rooted in the Jewish tradition.”2Rabbi Alan Lew, the other leader, who had been a practitioner of Zen before he became a Rabbi states,

At Makor Or, we freely admit the meditation we learn comes from Buddhist teachings. But then, Judaism has always borrowed techniques from other cultures when it served to make Judaism more vital.

The first article employs the often-leveled charge that organization such as Jews for Jesus are “opportunists of Jewish ignorance.” We are told that Jews who do not have much knowledge of Judaism are falling prey to such evangelistic organizations. However, in the second article we find tolerance and encouragement of exploiting this very same ignorance.

The article proudly tells of the ignorance of some of the participant in this Zen / Judaism concoction. One person “drifted away from Judaism for about two decades and said that he was even more of a novice at Jewish prayer than he was at meditation.” Another person’s practice of Judaism was reduced to “I just paid the check and went to the High Holy Day services.” Others “have prior experience with Zen meditation.” One proudly states, “I’m passionately indifferent to the question of what precedent there is in Judaism for meditation.”

Are these people seen as manipulated victims of a cult? By no means. This is because the article claims that the Zen Buddhist meditation is a facilitator of a deeper Jewish worship and a sense of community.

Buddhism is a Gentile-Pagan, and for all practical purposes, atheistic religion. Zen meditation is not the meditation on the Word of God of which the Scriptures do speak. Rather, it is a way in which a person can work herself into an altered state of consciousness. It is a way in which to harmonize one’s karma. Karma is a works based concept of “salvation” that involves believing that the universe is an illusion and the belief in reincarnation into human, animal, mineral or ghostly lives in the next world (conceptual variations exist under the umbrella term “reincarnation”). These are the very things that God prohibited and exposed as false over and over in His Word.

Messianic Jews are Jewish people who believe that the Jewish Messiah has come in the person of the Jewish man Jesus of Nazareth as predicted in the Jewish Scripture. We know with all of our hearts, minds and strength that we are worshipping, living and dying for the one and only God, the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We have not converted to a gentile-pagan religion rather, we know that we are living the life of a Jew as it is laid out under the New Covenant just as the life of a Jew, before Jesus, was laid out under the Old Covenant-the Tanakh. May God speedily bless my people with the knowledge of the truth.

These issues are far too important to be handled in an emotional manner. Instead, we are to have intelligent opinions and arguments. We are not to let our prejudices cloud the facts nor our ability to reason.

Susan Perlman, executive director of the Survivor Stories video states,

These stories of Holocaust survivors who have come to believe in Jesus is a story that must be told.

“Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORDIsaiah 1:18

In my essay To Lie, or Not To Lie: That is the Question I pointed out that three atheists – Dan Barker, Matthew Davis and Reginald Finley – have, in lockstep, promulgated the same logical fallacy, one that originated with Dan Barker. In the writings of Sam Harris we find that he too offers support for another logical fallacy, one originating with Bertrand Russell.

Sam Harris writes that Bertrand Russell:

“had it right when he made the following observation: ‘The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured these infants went to Heaven.
No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so. In countless ways the doctrine of personal immortality in its Christian form has had disastrous effects upon morals_'”1

If this is what Bertrand Russell got right one would be frightened to death to see where he went wrong. If this is what Sam Harris considers right we can only mourn for him as it is sadly obvious that his is a mind so tragically flummoxed by enmity that he has lost the ability of basic rational thought processes.
What Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris presented was nothing but cynicism attempting to pretend that it is somewhere near the realm of rational, intellect and logic. But let us not fall into the same emotionally charged traps that serve as replacements for logic that Sam Harris and the other New Atheists are constantly laying out for us. Rather, let us see if we can muster some intellect and at least attempt a response.

Here we go.

But first, we have been forewarned: Bertrand Russell, with Sam Harris’ endorsement, has assured us that “No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action.”Firstly, let us note the extremism and absolutism of the statement: not one single orthodox Christian can find any, not one single, logical reason-period.

Secondly, we should ask just how Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris can make such absolutists statements since if there was one single orthodox Christian who finds any, even one, logical reason they would be proved wrong.

Well, I will declare that I am an orthodox Christian. Now, with all due respect to those more learned than myself – of which the world is saturated – I wish to throw my hat into the ring and see if I, employing all of my scant intellectual faculties, can come up with one, just one, logical reason.

Here we go.

Actually, before we jump into the fray we should wonder if a trap is being set here. Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris point the statement at orthodox Christians. But could it be that if an orthodox Christian quotes the Bible they would be said to be providing an illogical reason? What would be categorized as a logical reason?
In fact, while the claim is that no orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning it is admitted that all nowadays do so. Now we learn, as if we did not know, that all Christians nowadays condemn the actions. Is the claim that they are doing so illogically? Have Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris conducted some great survey of “all” Christians and ascertained, on a case by case basis, that each and every one of their reasons are illogical?

I suppose that we could make our attempt and see where it takes us.

Here we go.

“Don’t murder.”

There it is. We are done.

That is our logical reason for condemnation and it took all of two words. Although, in most translation of the Bible this, one of the Ten Commandments, is rendered as four words “Thou shalt not murder.”

For all practical purposes, we are done; having provided a two word counterargument. Yet, anyone that would put forth, defend and promulgate such a fallacious statement as Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris did may not be able to conceptualize such basic logic.

“Murder” is the taking of an innocent life-it is illegal and immoral while “killing” is the taking of a life due to self-defense, fighting a just war, etc.-it is legal and moral. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably the context will bare out what the terms mean. Since we are commanded not to murder, those children should not have been murdered-that was a manmade, not a divine, command.

If the point was to get people who are heaven bound to heaven asap then maybe a global taskforce could be established the purpose of which would be to ask people if they believe that they are heaven bound. If the answer is “Yes” then their brains could be dashed out on the spot. Why not save some resources?

It should be mentioned that based on the Bible itself and not on subsequent tradition; infant baptism is not a valid practice. While much could be stated with regards to this topic this essay is not the place for it. Succinctly, I will mention that once a study has been conducted of all the texts that mention baptism not only is an infant never baptized but baptism always requires the ability to hear the Gospel, understand it, accept it and only then get baptized. Once such a survey has been conducted it seems that Acts 18:8 encapsulates the whole of references to baptism, “many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” They heard, they believed and then they were baptized.

It should also be mentioned that based on the Bible itself and not on subsequent tradition; baptism is not for the purposes of salvation. Again, much could be stated in this regard but again, this essay is not the place for it. Let us note that the text that does refer both to baptism and salvation is, in fact, not correlating them:

“There is also an antitype which now saves us, baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1st Peter 3:21).

Note that baptism is not here defined as the physical act of getting one’s body wet but as the conscience decision that is being made.

Now that I think about, with my limited abilities, I seem to recall that Jesus’ great commission was stated thusly:

“Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the world. Amen” (Matthew 28:19-20).

The great commission states that they, let us call them missionaries, are to teach, baptize and teach. First, teach the Gospel, the initial message, baptize them when they have heard it, understood it and accepted it. Then baptize them and then teach them about the life of a believer. Not baptize and dash their brains out. In fact, you cannot teach, baptize and teach again to an infant. You may get them wet, if you want to call that baptism. But you cannot teach and teach.

Moreover, what appears to be Jesus’ opinion regarding children and their care? Jesus stated:

“And whoever shall receive one such little child in My name receives Me. But whoever shall offend one of these little ones who believes in Me, it would be better for him that an ass’s millstone were hung around his neck, and he be sunk in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:5-6 also in Mark 9:41-42 & Luke 17:1-2).

“Then little children were brought to Him, that He should put His hands on them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Allow the little children to come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 19:14 also in Mark 10:14 & Luke 18:16).

We must also ask whether Jesus, the apostles or the disciple did any such thing or taught that any such thing should be done. The answer is; absolutely not.

We may have happened upon another thought: since God has given us life, this life in the here and now world, we are to live that life and let others live it themselves.

Let us conceptualize a school that guarantees that any child that enrolls will end up attending college. Now let us imagine that the children file into class on the first day of their kindergarten class and the teacher states, “You are all guaranteed college attendance therefore, you will immediately be shuttled from kindergarten to the local university.”

It would be interesting to state Bertrand Russell’s statement in the following manner:

“The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured these infants went to Heaven. No atheist can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so (except when they support abortion).”

I should admit that I have not conducted a great survey and yet I have an advantage in make a statement that is as broad brushed as Bertrand Russell’s. Christianity consists of absolute morals but atheism is amoral. Note that I am not stating that it is immoral but amoral-not necessary breaking morals but lacking them. Individual atheists may take it upon themselves to condemn such actions but they cannot offer any absolute standards for doing so (they can make epistemic statements but not ontological). They may say that we ought to harm none or cause the least amount of harm or various other generalities yet they cannot claim that these are universal or absolute.

What should be asked of atheists is, “If it is in fact true that infants were baptized and immediately murdered, why is that wrong?” If you they claim that it is wrong then they must be basing their condemnation upon a moral law in which case there must be a moral law author and administrator. If not it is merely keep up with Judeo-Christian morality based semantics.

If this seems to be merely a biased argument let us consult with Sam Harris himself who believes that:

“Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”2

Moreover, we may consult with Prof. Richard Dawkins who made the following statement:

“There is no logical connection between what is and what ought. Now, if you then ask me where I get my ‘ought’ statements from, that’s a more difficult question. Firstly, I don’t feel so strongly about them. If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don’t find that nearly such a defensible statement as ‘I am a distant cousin of an orangutan’. The second of those statements is true, I can tell you why it’s true, I can bore you to death telling you why it’s true. It’s definitely true. The statement ‘killing people is wrong’, to me, is not of that character. I would be quite open to persuasion that killing people is right in some circumstances.”3

“[Nick Pollard:] Suppose some lads break into an old man’s house and kill him. Suppose they say: ‘Well, we accept the evolutionist worldview. He was old and sick, and he didn’t contribute anything to society.’ How would you show them that what they had done was wrong?
[Prof. Richard Dawkins:] If somebody used my views to justify a completely self – centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose roughly what, I suppose, at a sociological level social Darwinists did – I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds. I think it would be more: ‘This is not a society in which I wish to live. Without having a rational reason for it necessarily, I’m going to do whatever I can to stop you doing this.’ I couldn’t, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, ‘Well, in this society you can’t get away with it’ and call the police. I realise this is very weak, and I’ve said I don’t feel equipped to produce moral arguments in the way I feel equipped to produce arguments of a cosmological and biological kind. But I still think it’s a separate issue from beliefs in cosmic truths.”4

“I don’t think racism is a good thing. I think it’s a very bad thing. That is my moral position. I don’t see any justification in evolution either for or against racism. The study of evolution is not in the business of providing justifications for anything.”5

Thus, there is no biological, Darwinian evolutionary, nor intellectual grounds for condemning racism nor killing (here obviously “murder”). Yet, this does not stop Prof. Richard Dawkins, nor Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell for that matter, from breathing down brimstone and condemnation.

Simply stated, our lives have been established to follow a chronological progression. This is the natural and normal state of being.

Ever the fan of emotive assertions, Dan Barker struck again during his Feb. 12th debate with Kyle Butt (reviewed here):

A threat of violence, which is what Hell is; it’s a threat of eternal torture, any system of thought that has that thought in it, that scares the minds of children, who go to bed at night wondering if they’re gonna go to Hell, it is a morally bankrupt system.1

I do not know whether to think that Dan Barker is one of the most misinformed celebrity atheists when it comes to the Bible’s contents, if he knows better but manipulates it the most, or some combination of these and other factors. Fortunately, it is not my task to discern his thoughts or motivation but it is my task to consider his statements and parse the truth from fallacy. I have decided to combine a response to the above quote with a response to similar statements made by Prof. Richard Dawkins.

Let us make one thing clear: the Greek word odunao is translated both as torment and torture. Torture denotes the infliction of physical pain, while torment denotes mental anguish. Thus, let us be absolutely clear in understanding that nowhere in the whole Bible is it even hinted at that hell is to be pictured as a Gulag’s torture chamber. Neither is it even hinted at that there will be people, or demons, whose job is to inflict physical pain. Neither is satan ever pictured as some sort of king of hell. Rather, he is pictured as one who suffers like the rest, and indeed more so, for it was for him and the fallen angels for whom hell was created (Matthew 25:41). Dan Barker appears glean his understanding of hell from creepy medieval paintings or fallacious fire and brimstone preachers and not from the Bible.

One example of the concept of hell ought suffice:
From the safety and comfort of countries whose societies are based on Christian principles Richard Dawkins made the following narrowly prejudicial statement,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.2

Now, let us imagine that after dying Richard Dawkins finds out that this God is the one true God. Richard Dawkins has spent a lifetime expressing his hatred of this God. Thus, if God where to force Richard Dawkins into heaven this would be hell for him as he would have to spend eternity with a being whom he finds repulsive in virtually every imaginable way. Thus, God has created a place to which people can go, if he so choose, in order to be done with Him forever.

Richard Dawkins has made the point that religion’s real child abuse is its theology. He mentions that a particular woman was fondled by her parish priest and felt that it was “yuchy.” Yet, what really tormented her was the doctrine of hell which tormented “many a night.” Richard Dawkins tells that he, as a young Anglican, was “fondled by the Latin master” which he found to be a “disagreeable sensation…a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion.” He states that “As soon as I could wriggle off his knee, I ran to tell my friends and we had a good laugh, our fellowship enhanced by the shared experience of the same sad pedophile.” Moreover, he states, “I do not believe that I, or they, suffered lasting, or even temporary damage from this disagreeable physical abuse of power.”

He also makes various odd statements regarding power abusing pedophiles such as:

But reports of child abuse cover a multitude of sins, from mild fondling to violent buggery…just because some pedophile assaults are violent and painful, it doesn’t mean that all are. A child too young to notice what is happening at the hands of a gentle pedophile will have no difficulty at all in noticing the pain inflicted by a violent one. Phrases like ‘predatory monster’ are not discriminating enough, and are framed in the light of adult hang-ups.

Perhaps the Freudians of olden days would be better suited to comment on Richard Dawkins’ odd statements regarding pedophilia. What we are interested in addressing here is his virtual dismissal of sexual abuse and aggrandizement of doctrinal abuse as he states:

An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is. And there is no doubt at all that many children sincerely believe it, often continuing right through adulthood and old age until death finally releases them.

Do take a moment to note that according to atheism death is the great salvation from all of life’s wows. Death is the driving force behind all of life’s advancements, it is the god of Darwinian-Dawkinsian evolution. As Richard Dawkins has stated, “In nature, the usual selecting agent is direct, stark and simple. It is the grim reaper.”3

Certainly some have taken the doctrine of hell far and away from the Bible and have accentuated particular aspects of the symbolic language that is used to describe it such as “fire” and “torture.” I have written on various misconceptions of hell in my essay On Hell and Why Would Your Lord Send You To Hell? and, for that matter, with regards to fallacious and dangerous celibacy in The Celibate Priesthood – God’s Will and Human Nature.
Thus, to the point, as Richard Dawkins states it:

Only a minority of priests abuse the bodies of the children in their care. But how many priests abuse their minds?…The threat of eternal hell is an extreme example of mental abuse.

At this point we ought to note that according to Dawkinsian style logic, evils done in the name of “religion” (whatever “religion” may mean) discredit religion but good done in its name do not accredit it. The Dawkinsian tactic, and that of many others such as Sam Harris, is to claim that evil done in the name of religion discredits the religion. Thus, they tirelessly point out these evils. How they determine what is “evil” is another matter entirely. Upon it being pointed out that they are only looking at one side of the issue by not mentioning the enumerable acts of charity done in the name of religion they simply retort with words to the effect of, “Good people would have done that anyway but religion is what causes good people to do evil” (whatever “good” and “evil” may be). Thus, their comments are logically fallacious on many levels.

Now, getting to the main point which is that torment of the mental/psychological nature are not unique to religious upbringing. This mere fact discredits Dan Barker’s and Prof. Richard Dawkins’ assertion that a religion that preaches hell is therefore discredited.
Presuppositionally, I would state that the doctrine of hell is about as abusive as a doctor telling you that you have a terminal disease that will eat away at your body for decades on end and cause chronic and intolerable pain-unless, that is, you simply take a medicine that is guaranteed to cure you. Bother Dan Barker and Richard Dawkins do make some valid points and preachers of hell ought to handle the subject with accuracy and love and we should certainly empathize with those who have been needlessly tormented.

I wish to end this essay by what prompted me to write it in the first place and that is by sharing an anecdote. I must admit that I too have similar experiences of being raise in sheer terror. I was raised in a 100% secular household by an atheist and an agnostic and I believed that when I died I would simply disappear, just altogether cease to be. This though was so terrifying that from my earliest childhood memory I recall crying to myself in utter despair.

This belief also made me horribly sad when, for example, my mother had to do something as menial as going to the market, what if she died before getting back home? I wanted my mommy.

It was horrific I assure you and, by the way, my older brother, in typical older brother style, played upon my fears and tormented me by doing things such as looking out of the window and saying things like, “Look! Mom is laying dead on the sidewalk!” I became so afraid of the dark that I used to tie a string around the light switch, then get in bed under my covers and finally pull the string in order to switch the lights off. I recall that when I was 18 years old I was at work and had to run into the bathroom to lock myself in the toilet stall because I was so consumed with despair. Imagine, a man crying to himself like a little child.

This is just my sad story of being mentally abused and psychologically scarred by being raised a secular environment.

Ultimately, I suppose that the argument from terror fails since it can be applied to theism and atheist as I can, sadly, attest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Incidentally, in case you are unempathetic and unsympathetic enough to attempt to turn this true story against be, as a theist, and make some sort of claim about my becoming a theist due to fear of death or some such thing allow me to note that I ended up becoming 100% comfortable with death and not in the least bit afraid of it long before I came to believe what I now believe.
I did, by the way, come literally within six inches of being decapitated once-but that is another story.