Issue #134-Proper Behavior Despite Bible--Not Beca

Biblical Errancy Issue #134-Proper Behavior Despite Bible--Not Because of, Anti-semitism, God's Power Resolves All Contradictions, Ultimate Anti-Intellectualism

Nov 10, '08 6:34 AM
by Loren for everyone










Issue No. 134



February 1994

Every year or so an entire issue is devoted to letters from our readers and this month's issue will continue that tradition.

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




DIALOGUE AND DEBATE




Letter #554 Continues from Last Month (Part o)

McKinsey accuses believers of nurturing feelings of superiority and nationalism. Some believers are guilty as charged, but again this is not a fault of their religion which, if it emphasizes anything, emphasizes personal humility and universal brotherhood. McKinsey would do well to judge religion by what religion teaches and by how its most exemplary votaries live and not by what some of its most unrepresentative members practice. In any event, nationalism and chauvinism are universal. They're no more likely to be found among believers than among non-believers....

The greatest commandment of the Bible, indeed, the quintessence of the entire Old Testament is the adjuration to do justice, to work for it, to fight for it for others. This is why churches were in the vanguard of the Civil Rights movement in this country, and why religious themes infused the movement with energy, songs, manpower, and blood.... It is why churches have historically resisted tyrants and oppressive laws.

Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part o)

You seem to be incapable of realizing, SF, that the appropriate response to nearly all of your observations is that if Christians are being tolerant, considering new ideas, rejecting chauvinism and otherwise behaving properly, it's because they are leaving the Bible rather than incorporating it. People are acting intelligently DESPITE the Bible, not BECAUSE of it. You say "some believers are guilty as charged, but again this is not a fault of their religion" when precisely the opposite is true. It is precisely the ones most in tune with biblical teachings and most capable of substantiating their position biblically that are least tolerant, most nationalistic, most chauvinistic and most provincial. You say we should judge religion by what religion teaches and "not by what some of its most unrepresentative members practice." Yet you fail to realize that these members are, in fact, the most representative of, and closest to, what the Bible teaches. Far more biblical teachings propagate narrowmindedness and intolerance than openness and magnanimity. Those behaving as you favor are doing so in opposition to, rather than in compliance with, the essential biblical message. Because they still refer to themselves as Christians and are adhering to exceptional verses, outsiders mistakenly believe that they are behaving as the Bible prescribes.

You say nationalism and chauvinism "are no more likely to be found among believers than among non-believers." Talk about being too ridiculous to merit a response! The American populace alone disproves this comment quite easily. The most nationalistic, chauvinistic, racist, and sexist elements are found among those believing the Bible is the inerrant word of a supreme being. The greater their attachment to the Bible, the less their attachment to other human beings. This can be attributed to the fact that in both quantity and quality the number of biblical verses pulling men apart is far greater than the number pulling men together and, consequently, the closer one adheres to biblical teachings, the more he is affected accordingly.

As far as your comment that "the quintessence of the entire Old Testament is the adjuration to do justice, to work for it, to fight for it for others" is concerned, a remarkable lack of sophistication is clearly evident. What parts of scripture prompted this wholly erroneous assessment? Virtually every book from Genesis to Job reeks with nationalism and contempt for other groups, and divine favoritism toward a special people is prominent throughout. Are we going to go by the overwhelming theme of the book or by a few isolated and contradictory verses that conflict with the general tenor?

Moreover, for you to assert that "churches were in the vanguard of the Civil Rights movement in this country" is both misleading and deceptive, and therefore inaccurate. Although a few churches and denominations in the liberal wing of Christianity conducted struggles for civil rights, they were by no means the majority or representative of Christianity as a whole, and were furthest from the fundamentalist approach to scripture. For every minister participating in the civil rights movement, scores either railed on the evils of integration or gave no encouragement to racial equalization.

And as far as your comment that churches have historically resisted tyrants and oppressive laws is concerned, that probably exhibits the most abysmal ignorance of all. Throughout the last 2,000 years, Christian leaders have worked relentlessly with the most tyrannical rulers imaginable and have received incredible amounts of ideological, political, and financial largess in the process. The record of the Catholic Church is especially reprehensible in this regard. Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell's "scriptural assistance" to Nixon during the Vietnam War era come readily to mind as well.

Letter #554 Continues (Part p)

Anti-semitism, he worries, will be hard to avoid should Christianity become culturally ascendant. This concern is hard to comprehend in light of the fact that it is Christians who are the strongest gentile supporters of Israel in this country, when it is Christians who believe that the Jews are God's chosen people, and when it is Christians who believe that it is our sin, not the Jewish people, which crucified Christ....

Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part p)

This publication is concerned with presenting what the Bible teaches, SF, not how you choose to interpret or misinterpret Scripture. Portions of the New Testament are clearly anti-semitic in essence. For you to allege that Christians "believe that it is our sin, not the Jewish people, which crucified Christ" is to erroneously allege that the scriptural comprehension of those opposed to your analysis is weak, and to ignore the fact that many biblically-based Christians not only clearly hold Jews responsible for the death of Jesus, but don't look upon the Jews as God's chosen people. In 1 Thess. 2:14-15 Paul says, "...the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the gentiles...," and while speaking to the Jews Peter says, "...that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified...." (Acts 4:10) and "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" (Acts 5:30). Jews are persecutors of Jesus according to John 5:16, 5:18 and 7:1 and accuse him of having a Devil (John 8:52). Jews delivered Jesus to Pilate (John 18:35) and Jesus says Jews are satanic (John 8:44). And according to the commentary in John 19:1-23, Jews combined with Roman soldiers to slay Jesus. So, for you to say the Bible does not propagate anti-semitism is ridiculous.

The problem for people who choose to look upon the Jews as God's chosen people is to reconcile this with biblical comments that clearly attribute the death of God's son to God's chosen people. God's Chosen killing God's only begotten son generates a clash of great significance. Christians in support of Israel have decided to ignore the Crucifixion in favor of Chosenness, while others have decided to ignore Chosenness in favor of focusing upon those responsible for the Crucifixion. Some Christians believe that Jews are God's Chosen and our sin crucified Christ, while others do not. From a NT perspective, the latter position is more viable.

Letter #554 Concludes (Part q)

Having spent some time with this article an objective reader might find himself left with several thoughts. One is that the author of such a piece must be either intellectually unscrupulous or terribly unsophisticated....

I have no doubt that McKinsey knows the Bible, but I don't think he understands it at all....

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #554 (Part q)

For you to denigrate the character of others, SF, while exhibiting in your letter more shortcomings than one would care to recite is nothing short of absurd. Your biblical comprehension is poor and your understanding of Christianity's role throughout history is even poorer. You refer to me as "intellectually unscrupulous or terribly unsophisticated", when these terms could more accurately be applied to yourself with "or" being replaced by "and." Like so many Christians, you twist, distort, pervert and, when all else fails, ignore thousands of biblical verses that don't conform to your conception of what the Bible "should" say. You create your own script with numerous embellishments, and then foist it on the public. The parallel between your activities and those of snake-oil salesmen is unavoidable. While supposedly providing the cure for everything, you only drain your devotee's resources, while keeping him in a detached euphoria at best. His problems are not cured, but only viewed in a different light.

Letter #563 from Dr. KM

Dear Mr. McKinsey. I've read a number of back issues of B.E., and I think I have a pretty good idea of what you're trying to do, but as far as I can see, in all this time, you've neglected one very important point that affects all your arguments, and that is this: God can do anything. Any Sunday-school child can tell you that.

And what does that mean? It means that God can, whenever He wants to, take a contradiction and turn it into a non-contradiction. He can take a fallacy and turn it into truth. That is only one way He can "confound the wise".

You can say "Well, 'white is black' is a contradiction." It is, unless and until God wants it not to be. Then "white is black" is no longer a contradiction, but is gospel truth. God is more powerful than all the laws of reason and logic, and can nullify or change the rules in any way at any time. Don't ask me how He can do it. His ways are omnipotent, and beyond my understanding or yours. If he wants to turn "up" into "down" or say that "l + 1 = 3" He can do it and it will make perfect sense in a microsecond. Every verse in the Bible is literally true. People like you are just too narrow-minded and have such tunnel vision that you can't accept the almighty power of an infinite and omnipotent God. Change your ways, Mr. McKinsey, and you can have a great reward at the end of your life.

Editor's Response to Letter #563

Dear Dr. KM. You have taken pseudo-intellectual anti-intellectualism to new heights by submitting the ultimate in religious inculcation and gibberish. I always thought Dr. Peter Ruckman's book Science and Philosophy was the most anti-intellectual composition in my repertoire, but your letter has surpassed even his absurd meanderings. This situation is made all the more tragic by the fact that your perverse thought processes and those of Ruckman are loaned an aura of respectability by a doctorate in something or other. Critiquing your letter is in a category by itself. You are among those pathetic beings who have left the realm of reason, logic, rationality, evidence, proof, data, and common sense and entered a never-never land of make believe and self-indulgent bliss. You refer to a being whose existence you can in no way prove, and assert he is capable of performing deeds which you can in no way demonstrate. As sad as it is to say, KM, you are a disgrace to every scientist, every inventor, every person who has ever tried to improve the status of mankind by demonstrating that which they allege. All you have succeeded in doing is proving that when carried to its ultimate conclusion, religious propaganda is dangerous to sane minds and can only lead to a total divorce from reality ,not unlike that found in neurotics and psychotics. You would have humanity believe that there can be a square circle, a four-sided triangle, and a non-existent existing being. You would have us believe that God can totally -- not partially -- totally destroy himself and then bring himself back into existence. You would have us believe that God can create a being more powerful than himself, or create something too heavy for him to lift. You would have us reject the law of non-contradiction itself, and have us believe that something can be itself and not itself simultaneously. You would literally have us believe that black can be white--the quintessence of inculcation, propaganda, indoctrination, and brainwashing. Is it any wonder that you would have us accept the Bible as the inerrant word of a supreme being? It's nothing more than the logical culmination of an up-is-down philosophy that can only lead to the rejection of all contradictions per se. Once people seriously adopt your philosophy, then anything they choose to believe can be justified on the grounds that God can do anything and God is on their side. They don't have to prove by reason or demonstrate by proof; all they need do is assert, and that alone is sufficient for verification. Talk about being divorced from the real world and dwelling in phantasia! Following that stream of thought I could claim to be god and defy you to prove otherwise. After all, you said god can do anything, anything. If that's true, then I could very well be god. Even more important, my claim to be god is true until you can prove the contrary, which is impossible. How do you know for certain that I am not god?-- prove it. I defy you to prove that I am not God. If you were to ask me to perform some stupendous feats, I need only say that I do not choose to do so, and you were told by Scripture not to test the Lord thy God. If you say my behavior is imperfect, I would only ask you to observe the activities of God in the OT and note that they were justified as well. That settles the matter. Every one of your thrusts could be easily parried. In fact, everyone on the face of this planet could make equally incredible claims and your stance with them would be no stronger than with me. You religionists just don't realize that you have to PROVE things. You completely ignore your own book, which clearly says "Prove all things" (1 Thess. 5:21). Merely saying or believing something is wholly insufficient. You just don't understand that when you alter or remove a basic intellectual concept, such as the law of non-contradiction, a chain reaction is set in motion that affects everything down the line. Everything is interrelated, and what you think will work to your favor in one instance will operate to your detriment in others. If you can go on a wild spree, then so can I. If you can make ludicrous claims, then so can I. And mine are not only as valid as yours, but equally incapable of being dispoven. The pandora's box you seek to open for yourself is also opened for all of mankind, and the only limits are the imaginations of all concerned. Someone could murder the person you love most and claim he is either god or acting on god's orders, and until you proved otherwise, you would have no right whatever to punish him. How do you know he isn't being truthful? I challenge you to prove otherwise! If you took his life, you could very well be killing a physical manifestation of god, and I don't need to tell you what the ultimate punishment for that would be.

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



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #564 from SF of York, Penn.

Dear Dennis.
Over the last several years, you have done a great job, exposing Bible contradictions. Non-believers and atheists will all agree and approve of that. But how effective is it with the superstitious majority? I would like to suggest that you go after absurdities. The Bible has just as many ridiculous absurdities as contradictions (and an absurdity would only require one verse). As an example, the "flood"--would require more water than exists on earth. Where did it all come from, and where did it all go? (It didn't, it couldn't!) An obvious absurdity.

Editor's Response to Letter #564

Dear SF.
Over the years we have mentioned quite a few biblical absurdities. They are by no means as rare as you might think. For example, most of the 9th Issue, especially the commentary entitled Biblical "science," discusses a sizable number of absurdities. You asked where all the water involved in the Flood went, which is one of the questions we posed years ago that now resides in our sample issue. If you are really interested in these kinds of difficulties I would recommend The Bible Handbook by Foote and Ball which has over 50 pages of absurdities listed.

Letter #565 from DM of Pasadena, California

Dear Mr. McKinsey.
Regarding letter #537e, I think that the truth would not please GM. The real reason why Jesus' resurrection was given such play in the NT, as you have made clear, has nothing to do with its biblical uniqueness or miraculous content. Rather, Jesus was being cast increasingly into the popular "pagan" mold of a savior god, joining the ranks, as it were, of such worthies as Attis (Phrygia), Mithra (Persia), Adonis (Syria), Bel (Babylonia), Osiris (Egypt), Prometheus (Greece), Krishna (India) and others. A glorious resurrection, entailing hope for mankind, was the heart and cornerstone of every savior god, long before Jesus came onto the scene. Jesus evolved from a classical Jewish messiah to a "pagan" savior god. Early Christian communities scattered around the Mediterranean, populated by recent "pagan" converts, naturally read their Hellenized ideals into Jesus, and their influence no doubt increased after the Roman conquest of the Holy Land.

Regarding letter #537g, I recommend that you refer to claims which have no evidential support as "non-facts" or some such term. Calling the existence of something "false" implies two things: (1) The object is meaningfully defined. (2) The object, in fact, does not exist. In the case of God, as envisioned by Christian theologians, it seems that the definition consists of a systematic negation of every quality or aspect of existence. That is, God is neither here nor there, without mass or dimension, invisible, etc. Thus, one wonders if the word "God" has, in the final analysis, any more meaning than "Jobblywick." We would not say that the existence of a Jobblywick is a false statement. The statement could also be called a "non-fact" which would cover in addition those cases where a Jobblywick is clearly defined (a two-foot green spider with red wings), but of which there is not the least bit of evidence.

After reading RS's letter (#551) a thought occurred to me. Why don't you try to round up 10 volunteers who will type the back issues of BE onto a computer disk? Surely, there must be eight others besides RS and myself who might willingly provide the labor if the workload isn't too heavy. I can see knocking off a dozen issues of BE over two or three weeks, without disrupting my routine too severely, and maybe others with computers would come to the same conclusion. If ten volunteers can be found, I'm willing to coordinate such a committee if no one else wants the job.

Think of it, BE roaring into the computer age! Every name or word being located by powerful search and find commands! Easy printouts (and custom handouts) of selected material! Easy duplication and a low price for a disk of all the back issues! Enthusiastic supporters loading portions of BE on electronic bulletin boards everywhere!

Editor's Response to Letter #565

Dear DM.
We appreciate your willingness to undertake the computerization of BE, but we already have a gentleman who has volunteered to type the first fifty issues onto a computer data disk. He is working on it now. Assigning a separate chapter to different people, working with different programs on different computers, is a prescription for disaster. I can imagine the dissimilarity that would arise. We do hope, however, to enter the computer realm much more extensively in the not-too-distant future.

Letter #566 from BY of Seminole, Florida

[While debating BE, GM made the following comment in Part (e) of Letter #537 on page 3 of Issue #129. He stated, "Your argument is not only invalid; it is misleading for a reader of Biblical Errancy not acquainted with the Bible, like BY of Seminole, Florida, who trusts your Periodical when he/she quotes the Bible." That statement prompted the following reply from BY, himself--ED.]

Since GM of letter #537 used ME as an example of how you are "misleading" people, I'd like to add a response of my own.

GM, you are making assumptions about me without any facts to back them up. I know this is not unusual for Christians, but unlike those referred to in the ancient texts, I'm still alive to rebut your errors. To begin with, without in any way detracting from this publication which I have found to be utterly reliable in those cases I've had occasion to check, I would certainly not be much of a scholar of anything if I relied only on one source without independent verification. In fact, this is the most grievous error that Bible-believers make, especially when the source they rely on has been translated, hand-copied, reinterpreted, and exists in so many variations--all claiming inspiration from an identical divine source--that none might be considered authoritative. However, BE constrains itself to the most popular version upon which most believers base their faith, and I will confine myself there as well. It so happens that I have the entire KJV on the hard drive of my computer, making it quick and easy to grab a printout of both the verses mentioned and surrounding ones, avoiding the claims of "out of context." Additionally, I have a small library of concordances and guides other than BE, some written by apologists such as yourself, and some written by more rational thinkers.

In circumstances where I have used these independent sources, the rational thinkers have always concurred with BE, and the apologist arguments are always so rife with fallacies that they are usually absurd. Most end with appeals for acceptance on the basis of faith, which is equivalent to admitting that reason cannot refute BE's claims.

Reliance on faith as a basis for life is foolish. Faith is simply emotion, wrongly used (as Ayn Rand and others have often noted) as a cognitive tool. If you need evidence as to the foolishness of allowing feelings to direct your life, ask yourself how many people have bought lottery tickets (or something similar, in case there is no lottery in Finland) because they "had a lucky feeling." Of course, when they lose, they seldom recall the strength of this "lucky feeling" that caused them to act as fools.

It would seem that Jesus himself had similar "lucky feelings", which undoubtedly accounts for that famous phrase, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" when he recognized that he too had lost the lottery. As Dennis notes, these are not the words of a man who planned it this way.

Letter #567 from JS of Medford, Massachusetts

Dear Dennis.
I hope your battle against mythological deception continues apace. "Judge" Joseph F. Rutherford, second president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) so aptly chirped at one time, "Religion is a snare and a racket"! I am hardpressed to disagree with him--on that count! As a former religionist I now take sides with you in your valiant battle!

Editor's Response to Letter #567

Dear JS.
Since Rutherford is one of the foremost leaders in the evangelistic movement, your quote could be of great assistance. Could you please cite book and page where it can be found?

Letter #568 from TF of Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Dear Dennis.
... I am attending the University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire with a double major of Philosophy and Religion. In my Bible classes the instructors typically do not emphasize the many errors, contradictions, failed prophecies, and atrocities contained in the Bible, but I take advantage of the opportunity and always raise my hand and point these things out for the benefit of the class. Most of these students were brought up as Christians, yet this is the first time they have actually read the Bible for themselves instead of listening to their clergy tell them what it allegedly says. Many of them are embarrassed, shocked, and outraged by what they are reading within the pages of this book, and it is obvious from their responses that they are beginning to question their religious upbringing. Truly the Bible is its own worst enemy....

Editor's Response to Letter #568

Dear TF.
Like many others, you are using BE in the manner intended. You researched the issue, found an audience, didn't expect people to come calling, and engaged biblicists on their own turf. You deserve a bouquet!

Letter #569 from RS of Sherman Oaks, California

Dear Dennis.
I am thoroughly impressed by your new tape series. As far as I know, your new commentary tape series is the most comprehensive rebuttal to Christianity's pseudo-scholars available. You take the Christian "experts" on their own turf, and dispose of their arguments one by one. Christians turn to McDowell, Sproul, and others, little realizing they are headed on a one-way trip into never-never land. Your tapes prove decisively that the apologists can't solve the problems they claim to solve, and that the problems are incapable of being solved, except in dreamland. Keep up the good work!