Issue #157- Free Inquiry Article "Pique," Rowell"

Biblical Errancy Issue #157- Free Inquiry Article "Pique," Rowell" Article Denouncing Discussion with Biblicists, Is Jesus' Resurrection Unique?, Did Nazareth Exist?, Reader Comments on CRI

Nov 10, '08 12:37 PM
by ¢¾ Denise for everyone





Issue #157 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Jan. 1996

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A national periodical focusing on Biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists

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


COMMENTARY
Many months ago someone sent us a newsletter published by the Secular Humanist Society of New York entitled "Pique." I was bothered by an article on page 2 written by someone named George Rowell entitled "Can secular humanists carry on a dialogue with religionists?" He states:
First we must ask, 'What is the purpose of a dialogue?' If it is a Socratic dialog, the object is to arrive at an agreed-on truth. Now, how do we maintain a dialogue with Christian or Jewish believers who maintain that they already have 'Revealed Truth?' They may have a house full of electronic equipment and even be scientifically literate but still deny the ultimate truth of the scientific method and world view that brought them the equipment.
As we approach the personal plane, any dialog becomes more and more impossible. There is the Christian dogma of original sin, strange archaic beliefs about mystical places called heaven and hell. All of these beliefs and other religious pathologies deny the worth of the individual, or of the bases of secular humanism.
I say that it is impossible to have a meaningful dialog with any people who already claim to have the 'Revealed Truth,' who hypocritically share the benefits of the scientific revolution but deny its ultimate validity, and deny and denigrate the worth of the individual. Who would benefit from such a dialog? Not us or them. We should forget the whole idea. A dialog is a waste of time, energy, and breath.
With whom should we have a dialog, then? The religious doubters of course. There are many we know, but they are unorganized. We should say, 'You have the right to doubt,' and show them why."
Rowell concluded his article with the following appeal. "What do you think? There are secular humanists who believe in the idea of a dialog. We want to know what you think. We'll print as many responses as we can in this column."
In the next issue a reader wrote in response, "I am in complete agreement with George Rowell's contention that it is futile to engage in 'dialog' with religious fundamentalists. If there is one thing clear about 'God's people' it is that they are convinced that they have a monopoly on truth and virtue, and that anyone with a point of view at variance with their own is inherently depraved and debased. In other words, these folks are convinced that they have all the answers, and that a questioning mind leads directly to eternal torment. We humanists, on the other hand, revel in the uncertainty and mystery of existence and are more inclined to seek new questions, rather than dwell on 'eternal verities'. This is in harmony with the scientific point of view, which is the mortal enemy of all religious thinking and which has pushed human horizons to the very edge of the Universe....I have learned to ignore these people and I have no interest in a 'dialogue' with any of them. Many of them would have burned us at the stake if they had the chance."
Rowell wrote another article in the Fall 1993 Free Inquiry magazine entitled "The Sunday Regression Service" and concluded it with, "...atheists and secular humanists should make a sharp shift in focus of our attacks on religion. We are wasting our time focusing on biblical contradictions and irrationalities. Most Christians have been effectively anesthetized against criticism of this nature. We should instead focus our attention on the psychological manipulations, deceptions, and sleight-of-hand that have made Christianity the longest running shell game in the West. The institutionalized regression of regular church services is a prime example of this pathology."

Page 157-2
This last article was sent to us by a reader who said, "While I do not agree that focusing on biblical contradictions and irrationalities are a waste of time (I have read every issue of BE and learned much from your publication) Rowell, nevertheless, may have a good idea. Christian ideologues are masters of deceit.... When time and space allow, you may wish to explore some of Rowell's suggestions...." Based upon the contents of this newsletter for the last 13 years, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I am in profound disagreement with parts of Rowell's analysis for many reasons.
First, I have never been to an atheist, humanist or similar freethought gathering in my life in which a majority of the participants did not come from some sort of religious background. It seems fair to conclude that if they can work their way up and out of religion, so can others. Rowell is assuming that the opposite of a key fundamentalist belief is true. Instead of once saved always saved, it becomes, once lost always lost. Sorry! But I don't think the evidence bears that out for many people. Yes, they are lost if nothing and no one does anything to save them; they are lost if they never hear a discouraging word or data to the contrary; they are lost if the conditions which caused them to accept fundamentalism in the first place are not sufficiently altered; they are lost if they are incapable of even the most elementary critical thought, and they are lost if they have material reasons for staying where they are. But that doesn't apply to many people. Are we just going to throw all of them into one big basket and write them off as a hopeless mass of brainwashed dupes?
Second, an essential element of Rowell's argument is antidemocratic. What is the alternative to argumentation, evidence, and persuasion, if not physical confrontation and force. Would Rowell advocate the same philosophy in the realm of politics. The right wing of the republican party is dominated by religious fundamentalists. Would he also say it is a waste of time to debate and argue with people like Gingrich, Gramm, and Buchanan. If so, then why have a Congress? Why meet and discuss anything with people of this caliber? After all, their minds are as firmly fixed in the political realm as those of their supporters are in the religious realm. The political right is almost an overlay of the religious right. If it is absurd to debate in the religious arena, then it is no less absurd to clash in the political arena or the economic arena, for that matter. Rowell's approach appears to be one of either leaving or ignoring the problem. Too bad it's not that simple. Or maybe he just thinks we ought to slug it out physically. Biblicists are working like beavers night and day with tremendous wealth and sizable numbers to get their agenda passed, and if Rowell thinks they are going to leave him alone, then he is ensconced in fantasyland.
Rowell says "that it is impossible to have a meaningful dialog with any people who already claim to have the 'Revealed Truth" when I debate with fundamentalists of every stripe on a daily basis. I strongly suggest he read the Dialogue and Debate sections of this newsletter (over 13 years of interaction), and then tell me it is impossible to have a dialogue. He says, "Who would benefit from such a dialog? Not us or them. We should forget the whole idea. A dialog is a waste of time, energy, and breath." I couldn't disagree more. He's assuming: Once programmed, always programmed. Hasn't he ever heard of deprogramming? If he's repeatedly failing to dissuade people from views they have held for 30 years in 30 minutes, then I can understand his frustration and disillusionment. But that's not how it's done. Dissuasion is not only nearly always more taxing and time-consuming than the original indoctrination but almost always requires multiple encounters.
Third, Rowell says, "What is the purpose of a dialogue? If it is a Socratic dialogue, the object is to arrive at an agreed-on truth." If that's the object of a Socratic dialogue, then we'd better pursue a different dialogue, because that's not my purpose. My initial objective is considerably more fundamental than that. Before you can eat eggs, you must crack shells. Before any-one is going to accept what you have to offer, they must first be convinced of the error of their ways. And that entails penetrating their outer screen. Why would biblicists accept anything you have to offer unless and until they have been shown what is wrong with what they already have. So the initial thrust should not be toward reaching an "agreed-on truth" but toward shaking their resolve and lessening their adherence to what they already believe. I am not nearly as concerned with reaching an agreed upon truth as causing biblicists to loose faith in what they already have. Once their confidence in that which they hold most dear is cracked or shattered, they are far more inclined to look around for alternatives and become amenable to suggestions. Getting them to agree with me in the earliest stages is of far less importance than causing them to think, criticize, question, and reject that which they already have.
Fourth, Rowell states that, "As we approach the personal plane, any dialog becomes more and more impossible. He'd do well to rewrite this sentence since the word "impossible" admits of no gradations. He's becoming impaled on one of those absolutist terms that destroy so much of the Bible's credibility. Wisdom would suggest that the word "impossible" be replaced by the word "difficult."
Fifth, Rowell states, "Who would benefit from such a dialog? A dialog is a waste of time, energy, and breath." Again I must disagree. Everyone involved in discussions of this sort is effected to one degree or another. Be it ever so slight, modifications in outlook are all but impossible to avoid.
Sixth, Rowell continues, "With whom should we have a dialog, then? The religious doubters of course. There are many we know, but they are unorganized. We should say, 'You have the right to doubt, and show them why." So, he only wants to debate those who already have doubts. That's like telling people I am not going to teach you biology, French, algebra, or history unless you are already inclined to accept those disciplines. I'm not going to teach you to play tennis or swim, unless you're already interested in activities of that nature. After all, unless you have already shown yourself to be inclined in those directions, there is no sense in me wasting my time. There is no value to be gained by me trying to channel you along those lines.
Seventh, the reader who wrote in sympathy with Rowell says, "I have learned to ignore these people and I have no interest in a 'dialogue' with any of them." Now who's being narrow-minded? I've heard that same comment on several occasions from fundamentalists denouncing freethinkers.
Eighth, in his Fall 1993 article Rowell stated, "We are wasting our time focusing on biblical contradictions and irrationalities." What does he suggest as a substitute: Glittering generalities, nebulous theological debates, extensive listings of biblical atrocities and immoralities, disputed historical contentions, or vague philosophizing on the nature of man's condition and the existence of some sort of divine being concerned with our welfare? Perhaps he prefers arguments based on opinions and imprecise theorizing which unfortunately are not only easy to restructure as conditions dictate but nearly impossible to pin down. Any freethinker who can't devise arguments that are simple, concrete, demonstrable, and important, can all but forget about influencing even the most unsophisticated of biblicists. If Rowell thinks apologists are going to concede points he takes for granted out of the goodness of their hearts, then he's only exposing his degree of detachment from reality. They aren't going to grant him anything and unless he can come up with something that is so obvious, so demonstrable, so clear-cut, so undeniable that even a child can follow the discussion, he has embarked upon a journey to nowhere. Fortunately freethinkers have a tremendous ally in this regard--one of the Bible's greatest weaknesses--it's tangibility, it's condition of being written. In many ways it's set in concrete--an incredibly vulnerable position from the freethinker's point of view. Any lawyer worth his degree will tell you: Get it in writing. When the other guy commits himself to print, he has really stuck his neck out. And just as lawyers go over contracts with a fine tooth comb, freethinkers should peruse the Bible with equal concentration. No other document or stream of argumentation in the United States puts more religious people in a straight-jacket than the Bible.
Ninth, Rowell says, "Most Christians have been effectively anesthetized against criticism of this nature. We should instead focus our attention on the psychological manipulations, deceptions, and sleight-of-hand that have made Christianity the longest running shell game in the West." As a practical matter, what does that mean. In real terms what is he saying? I'd be interested in seeing some of these manipulations, deceptions, and sleight-of-hand tricks that readily lend themselves to rebuttals and exposure with such overpowering impact that thousands of people will be influenced.
The problem is not that people "have been effectively anesthetized against criticism of this nature" but that they have been hearing almost nothing about all of the problems associated with Scripture. Freethinkers have been doing very little in regard to studying the Bible or exposing the flaws contained therein. The American people have been continually subjected to uncorrected and unhindered religious domination of the media and unbridled religious propaganda of this nature can only inure to their detriment. Sunday schools are another element of society that are notoriously one-sided. There has been almost no countervailing voice or contradictory data. And anything to which people aren't exposed, they aren't going to get. If Rowell thinks people who have no access to countervailing views are going to change, then he is even more naive than I thought.
And lastly, Rowell concluded his Pique article with the following appeal. "...There are secular humanists who believe in the idea of a dialog. We want to know what you think." In light of what he has already stated, the implication underlying this comment is that he believes in dialogue only with those who already doubt. If that's humanism then, perhaps, I should reassess my position vis a vis humanism or view the word "humanism" in a different light. There is an element of close-mindedness on his part that I find just as revolting as that which is so endemic to religious fundamentalism. One is as bad as the other. Unfortunately, one of the saddest discoveries I have made over the years is that fundamentalists do not have a corner on the market when it comes to crackpotism. Some of those who have left religion in general and the Bible in particular have adopted philosophies that are almost as preposterous as that which they jettisoned. My philosophy, on the other hand, is quite simple. I'll converse or debate with anyone having sufficient courage or foolishness to show up. I don't prejudge the outcome, assume that which is yet to be proven, insist on unreasonable ground rules, or decline interaction without prior assurances. My biggest problem is just getting people to appear or return to the fray on a repeated basis. I am certainly not going to avoid anyone who is so naive as to try to defend religion in general or the Bible and Jesus in particular. As I have said several times. When those with revealed truth appear at my door they are invited in and the entry is sealed. As far as I am concerned they are not only poor lost souls who have been brought to my home for salvation from mythology, folklore, and superstition but benighted sojourners who may never again have another opportunity to hear the Word exposed for the fraud that it is.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #653 from JB of Ft. Lauderdale Florida (Part a)
Dear Dennis. I wanted to respond to some of the things in your commentary about the Resurrection of Christ. You've probably had many responses from people like myself, so if I am repetitious, just ignore it. While the scriptures do record several "resurrections," none of them have the importance and significance to that of Christ's. You correctly noted Paul's statement that if He be not raised, his preaching is in vain, as is our faith, and we are dead in our sins. I don't think we can say that about the others who were resurrected. Jesus, as God the Son, had the unique qualifications to do what no other mortal could. Also, most of those raised from the dead, died again. Only Enoch and Elijah did not die a natural death. Neither will those believers who are alive when the "rapture" happens (1 Thess. 4:16, 17; 1 Cor. 15: 51-53). While it isn't always clear, it seems that these resurrections were for the glory of God who was behind all of them.

Editor's Response to Letter #653 (Part a)
Dear JB. Unfortunately, you are being repetitious. I really wish you had read the relevant back issues of BE on this topic. First, you say that none of the prior resurrections "have the importance and significance" of Christ's. All you have done is make a statement while providing no proof. How is his resurrection more significant or more important than those of others? Second, you say you "don't think we can say that about the others who were resurrected." Why not? Again no evidence is provided. All you have done is express an opinion based upon Paul's opinion. But even more importantly, you have subtly shifted our focus. My original question was why the resurrection of Jesus would be of any consequence when others rose from the dead before him. I said it should have been met by a resounding yawn followed by "So what else can you do?" Instead of focusing on the resurrection itself you have chosen to emphasize the supposed results that emanated from that event. But that's not the issue. I asked why it was so different as to merit special consideration. What did Jesus do that was different? All you are saying is that it was different and that's why it merits special consideration. But again I ask: Why was it so different as to be important? Your strategy is very analogous to the technique employed by apologists when they are asked how God can be just when he punishes mankind for what Adam did. Instead of answering the question they enter into a lengthy discussion of how God's justice is demonstrated by the fact that he allowed Jesus to provide us with an avenue by which to escape this dilemma. But that's not the issue. If God were really just, he would never have punished us for Adam's misdeed to begin with. We should never have been in the predicament from the beginning. With respect to the resurrection of Jesus, the question is how his was different from those that preceded it, not that it is important because it was different. Apologists are notorious for assuming the very point at issue and then proceeding from there. Third you say Jesus "had the unique qualifications to do what no other mortal could." What qualifications? What are you talking about? And what is it he did that no other mortal could do or did? Stop making statements without proving anything. You are not preaching to the choir and I have no intention of blindly accepting anything you say without evidence and corroboration. Fourth , you have also repeated that worn out defense that "most of those raised from the dead, died again." Where is that stated in scripture? How do you know they died again? How do you know that they did not go straight to heaven like Elijah in his chariot? And, even more importantly, as I have also stated before, that's not the issue. Paul said it's the Resurrection that counts, not the fact that Jesus never died again. Where are you getting this in scripture. Instead of twisting the Bible into whatever strikes your fancy, perhaps you need to write your own version and send me a copy which we could then discuss. Fifth, you state, "Only Enoch and Elijah did not die a natural death." Where does scripture say they died at all? You are making an assumption for which I see no biblical support. All scripture says is that "Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (2 Kings 2:11) and "Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him" (Gen. 5:24). Where does it say they died, naturally or otherwise? Sixth, you dragged in a reference to the alleged Rapture for reasons I am yet to discern. Not only is it immaterial to the point you are trying to make, but, if anything, it proves the opposite by citing examples of people who, like Jesus, never died again. In fact, they never will die to start with, if your rapture theory has any merit. I think you are so enwrapped by the Rapture that you all but wrapped up any validity to your argument. This topic was so juicy from your perspective that you couldn't resist bringing it into the discussion, even at personal cost. And finally, you say, "While it isn't always clear, it seems that these resurrections were for the glory of God who was behind all of them." "It isn't always clear!" is an understatement if there ever was one. How true! It's not clear. So why bring it up? Even if it were clear, what difference would that make and how does it bear on the topic at hand?

Letter #653 Concludes (Part b)
I can promise you one thing. If I had a child who met with a tragic or untimely death, I would be grieved like never before. I don't think I would "yawn" if that child were restored to life. And it is clear that nobody "yawned" when Jesus was resurrected. A little unbelief, yes, but no yawning. While the scriptures do record several resurrections, they were minuscule in comparison to those who were not raised back to life. So I don't think you can say that this sort of thing was "commonplace."
Imagine this. If Christ is not raised from the dead, the greatest hoax of all time has been played on untold "billions" of people. I say billions because the resurrection was taught as a doctrine in the OT as well as the New (Gen. 22:5; Job 14:14; 19:25-26; Psalm 49:15; Isaiah 26:19; Hosea 13:14; Daniel 12:2). OT believers in the Messiah had faith that they would be raised from the dead to live in the presence of God forever.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #653 (Part b)
Let's don't try to play the emotional card, JB. We are comparing resurrections, and as far as the difference between the resurrection of Jesus and those of others is concerned, it should be met with a yawn. We are not discussing deaths but their opposites, resurrections from death. Obviously, on a personal level the death and resurrection of a close relative, like a child, would almost never be met with a yawn. But who said anything about deaths? The issue is resurrections from death, not deaths themselves or to whom they occur. Second , how do you know that "it is clear that nobody yawned when Jesus was resurrected." Were you there or is that in scripture somewhere? Where are you getting all these conclusions, summations, and conjectures you periodically throw around with thoughtless abandon. Third, you say, "While the scriptures do record several resurrections, they were minuscule in comparison to those who were not raised back to life." This is more than repetitious and non substantive; it's incoherent. It sounds as if you are comparing resurrections to other resurrections in which people are not raised to life. If they weren't raised back to life, how could they experienced resurrections? What are you talking about?. Fourth, you state, "So I don't think you can say that this sort of thing was 'commonplace'." To what is "this sort of thing" referring? Resurrections? But we have proved that they were sufficiently common in biblical times to warrant asking how the resurrection of Jesus was different from all those that preceded it, and, thus, why it could not be considered commonplace. And lastly, except for the words "in Messiah" I have no particular objection to the contents of your last paragraph but its contribution to your argument eludes me. You seem to have great difficulty staying focused on the topic at hand and are possessed by a pronounced tendency to tour "tangent trail."
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #654 from DJ of Standard, California
Dear Scholar. Your Bible Errancy Commentary which we saw on a local public access to cable TV here in Sonora was great. Please send me information.

Editor's Response to Letter #654
Dear DJ. We would not only like to thank you for your compliment but especially thank those responsible for the program being aired in California. If only more people were willing to assist our cause! It's nice to know that we are now being seen on the West coast.

Letter #655 from DH of Lebanon, Oregon
Dear Mr. McKinsey. Thank you for sending, at my request, the sample issue of your fine publication. You are doing a great service. Count me as a subscriber.... I am a longtime freethinker who, in my early youth, had sights set upon the ministry. Fortunately, I came to my senses before I'd gone too far down that road. You would be interested to learn, however, what the dean of an Episcopal cathedral said to me when I was in college. I told the dean that I was thinking of not pursuing a clerical career because I honestly didn't believe the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. How could I do the liturgy, say all the things the priest had to say and simultaneously know in my mind that I didn't believe a word of it. His response was, "You shouldn't worry about that; most of us (other clergy) don't believe it either!" Despite my freethinking point of view, I have always maintained a strong interest in the Bible and have been looking for years for publications like those you produce....

Letter #656 from KH of Greenacres, Washington
Dear Mr. McKinsey. I read and very much enjoyed my daughter's copy of The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy My memory is fuzzy on your mention of Nazareth but I was surprised that you didn't point out that there wasn't even a town called Nazareth during Jesus' lifetime (though apparently there was a village that was later renamed Nazareth). Perhaps you haven't been exposed to that possibility. In the second paragraph, on page 260 of William Harwood's Mythology's Last Gods he says it was renamed in the 5th century C.E. On page 191 in the 3rd paragraph of Losing Faith in Faith Dan Barker mentions that there's no confirmation of a city named Nazareth before the second century C.E. A third mention (for which I cannot find the reference) was to the effect that the mother of the Roman Emperor Constantine was greatly embarrassed by the non-existence of a town called Nazareth, so she convinced her son to create one. Keep up the good work.
Letter #657 from HK of Randolph, Mass.
Dear Mr. McKinsey. I've been subscribing to BE for the past year, and it's an always interesting, stimulating publication. Thank you. I think you and other BE readers might find the following info of some interest:
The "Christian" "Research" Institute of California does a daily radio broadcast, "The Bible Answer Man", answering questions from callers. (I need hardly add, I suppose, that most callers are quite naive and obviously crave the authoritative assurance the host, Hank Hennagraaff, provides.). One of CRI's arguments "proving" the "truth" of the bible is the claim that "the bible does not contradict itself, and the odds of that happening by chance, with 66 separate books, are so small as to be impossible." I thought it would be interesting to try to learn the source of that calculation, so I wrote CRI a (very sympathetic) letter, specifically asking for the source of the calculation and the name of the publication or article where I could read more about this. Naturally, all I got back was a repetition of the claim--no reference at all to the source of the calculation. That's no surprise.
Another argument these folks use is that the fact that some incidents and places mentioned in the Bible are real "proves" the truth of the bible. By this logic, there are obviously a lot of novels which are "true", since they mention real places, events, and people. Sheesh!!! Don't these people use their brains for anything?? Thanks. Keep up the good work.

Letter #658 from EB of Corpus Christi, Texas
Dear Dennis. At last I got Biblical Errancy Commentary scheduled on the local public access channel. I think I told you each program would be on four times a week. That is no longer the case because so many more programs are playing now than was true several years ago. The program will be on Friday at 2 p.m. and Sunday at 8 p.m. I will leave each program on for two weeks so that more people will have an opportunity to see it. I'm hoping you will get correspondence as a result of these programs.
Editor's Response to Letter #658
Dear EB. Sounds like a viable plan to me and keep up the good work. If you get an opportunity to switch the Friday afternoon program to any evening after seven, I would recommend doing so. By that time most people are home from work and have finished supper. But an afternoon time is certainly better than nothing. When you begin a new program, you sometimes have to go to the end of the line and accept time slots that are less than desirable. We have been fortunate enough to have had the 7 P.M. time slot in our area from the very beginning.

Letter #659 from BC of Seattle, Washington
Hello. Saw your name in The Book the Church Does Not Want You to Read. After 15 years in a cult (Armstrongism) I finally saw through a lot of religion and now have begun to question the King James itself. I never could buy the idea in the Ten Commandments to not make graven images and the same God telling Moses to set up a golden serpent for healing the Israelites. Something's wrong.

Letter #660 from BS of Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Dear Dennis.... I look forward to receiving your back issues, even though it will mean staying up very late at night for the pleasure of finishing them and probably falling asleep at work the next day.

EDITOR'S NOTE: We're always in need of more people willing to play our cable access TV tapes in their vicinity and we would again like to renew our gratitude to all those who have already had some aired. If you're already involved, by all means write and let us know how events are proceeding.
Although the tapes were primarily created for use on public access cablevision, we are more than glad to send them to those who are merely buying them for their own use and dissemination.