Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2012 11:42:03 GMT -8
Issue No. 16 April, 1984
Ignored Teachings (Part One of a Three-Part Series)--For hundreds of years biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible's teachings on ethics, manners, and morality. They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralisms. The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft-noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches. Biblicists practice what can only be described as "selective morality". What they like, they expound; what they don't like, they ignore, even though the validity or strength of one is no less than that of the other. That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all; while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addresed 2,000 years ago. They enjoy quoting the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and some of Paul's preachings, for example, but don't pretend to heed other, equally valid, maxims. The following examples show the selectivity of apologetic morality.
To be a Christian one must be extremely poor--as poor as the proverbial church mouse. The Bible makes this quite clear:
"...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" Luke 14:33
"If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" Matt. 19:21
"Sell your possessions and give alms" Luke 12:33
"But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" Luke 11:41
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" Matt. 6:19-21
"How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" Mark 10:23
"Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matt. 19:23-24
A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21
Paul said, "For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil. 3:8 RSV)
Jesus says,[John 14:15 KJV], "If ye love me, keep my commandments."
It's much easier, and far less painful, to rationalize away clear-cut statements than surrender great wealth because of Biblical injunctions. Paul said, "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content" (1 Tim. 6:8).
The lavish personal wealth of many Christians bears witness to their avoidance of these biblical teachings, Luke 3:11, which says, "who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do like-wise." One can only speculate as to the number of coats Christians have in their closets. Jesus said, "Give to him who asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (Matt. 5:42). Asking any modern Christian individual of any Christian denomination for a sizable portion of his or its wealth would be an exercise in futility. How many biblicists attempt to obey the biblical precept which says, "and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again" (Luke 6:29-30 RSV)? They avoid Matt. 5:40, which says, "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him also have thy cloak." Apologists don't mind quoting the prior verse (Matt. 5:39) about turning the other cheek, because it concerns attitudes and is not concrete; no direct physical denial is involved. Turning one's cheek is far less painful and tangible than turning in dollars. The former is more nebulous and subject to interpretation. Jesus commissioned his twelve disciples to, "provide neither gold nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, not yet staves, for the workman is worthy of his meat" (Matt. 10:9-10). If these were the morally right procedures for the disciples of Christ 2,000 years ago, then they should have some relevance to his disciples of today. But the entourage and wealth accompanying any well-known evangelist on his periodic journeys highlights the inconsistency involved.
Early Christian groups even practiced a form of communal ownership of property. "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods and parted them to all men, as every man had need" (Acts 2:44-45, also note Acts 4:34-37). Yet, except for a few isolated communities, today's biblicists preach the opposite.
In summary, it's not enough to avoid the accumulation of wealth; one must actively seek to eliminate whatever property may come into one's possession. (See also: Acts 20:35, Rom. 12:13, Col. 3:2, Matt. 6:24). In so far as wealth and property are concerned, Christian monks, ascetics, and some factions of the Amish, for example, are far closer to biblical teachings than any of the well-known clergymen or denominations of today. While engaged in dialogue with a minister several years ago, I noted that his Lincoln Continental parked nearby was wholly inconsistent with biblical tenets. After offering the usual apologetic rationalizations (e.g., I live a frugal life and the Bible does not require me to give away what I own), he denounced my motives and left. Neither of his excuses was accurate.
Second, a true follower of Jesus can neither divorce someone, (a) "So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder"(Matt. 19:6, Mark 10:9), nor marry someone who is divorced, (b) "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" (Matt. 5:32, 19:9, Luke 16:18). There is an exception to the former, however. If the spouse commits adultery, divorce is permissible: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery" (Matt. 5:32). The Bible also says that anyone who obtains a divorce and marries another is an adulterer: "...whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18), which applies to women as well--Mark 10:12. In essence, according to Christ's teachings:
•(1) one can never obtain a divorce, except from an adulterous spouse;
•(2) one can never marry a divorced person, and
•(3) one who obtains a divorce and marries another is committing adultery.
One can only guess at the number of Christians who have ignored these maxims.
A true follower of Jesus can never divorce someone: "So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder"(Matt. 19:6, Mark 10:9).
Nor marry someone who is divorced: "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" (Matt. 5:32, 19:9, Luke 16:18).
There is an exception to the former, however. If the spouse commits adultery, divorce is permissible: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery" (Matt. 5:32).
The Bible also says that anyone who obtains a divorce and marries another is an adulterer: "...whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18), which applies to women as well--Mark 10:12.
In essence, according to Christ's teachings: one can never obtain a divorce, except from an adulterous spouse and one can never marry a divorced person, and one who obtains a divorce and marries another is committing adultery.
Christians ignores these maxims.
George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented: "While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."
Divorce Rate Statistics of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Marriages
Various studies on US rate of divorce show significant differences when a comparison is made in 1st, 2nd and 3rd marriage breakups in America. The marriage breakup rate in America for first marriage is 41% to 50%; the rate after second marriage is from 60% to 67% and the rate in America for 3rd marriage are from 73% to 74%. Reports also say that couples with children have a slightly lower rate of breakup as compared to couples without children. This is due to the fact that being childless is one of the prime causes behind divorce in America. Also, the children of divorced parents are prone to divorcing 4 times more than the children of couples who are not divorced.
PRAYER Third, current attempts to put prayer into schools run directly counter to biblical teachings. In one of his comments on the manner in which one should pray, Jesus said prayer should be a private affair devoid of public display: "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room (or closet) and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret...." (Matt. 6:5-6 RSV). Biblicists violate this on a regular basis and have no intention of correcting their behavior.
It's interesting to note that Paul's maxim that men should pray with their heads uncovered is generally followed because removing one's hat isn't particularly inconvenient. It is easy to follow. "Any man who prays or prophecies with his head covered dishonors his head,...."(1 Cor. 11:4 RSV). On the other hand, Paul's tenet that women must keep their heads covered with a veil during prayer is quite inconvenient and, for this reason, has either been rationalized away or ignored, although it is no less binding than any other moral law in the New Testament: "...but any woman who prays or prophecies with her head unveiled dishonors her head.... For if a woman will not veil herself, then we should cut off her hair: but if it be disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.... Judge for yourself; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered?" (1 Cor. 11:5-13 RSV)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter # 38 from the American Atheist Center of Austin, Texas
(Near the end of Jan., 1984, BE was told by the American Atheist Center that it would be holding a convention in Lexington, Kentucky, in mid-April. We sent a letter to the AAC stating that we would not only like to attend but set up a booth to advertise and distribute BE. The following reply from Ms. O'Hair was received on February 15th). Dennis McKinsey. Thank you for your inquiry. American Atheists feel it is reactionary to do battle on the grounds of the religious. The Bible needs to be thrown into the trash. Your continuing jousting with segments thereof gives authentication to that with which you do joust. One does NOT argue with one's nightmares. The exercise is as the French say, inutile. The Convention in Kentucky has no interest in this at all. Therefore, we will not authorize you to "set up a booth" to publicize and distribute copies of your publication, which drags Atheists back to the Bible--for no good reason. If you want to set up a booth, anywhere, you will need to pay your own way. You will not be permitted to use the facilities for which we have paid. We will not distribute your literature, or give it a place on our book stands. There is no personal or other animosity in this position which we take with respect to your BIBLICAL ERRANCY. There are tactics one uses in a battle and we decline to use these tactics. They take away from the positive thrust of Atheism and the programs which we are trying to use to give Atheists a voice in the culture, on their own, with their own weltanshaung--not in a religious framework. We have instituted an extensive educational program to wean Atheists away, as fast as we can, from that which you promote: a return to the Bible. Enclosed is a $6 check for a subscription to your letter, which will be filed in the American Atheist Library and Archives, Inc. here. Advise cost of back issues and if they have been bound. We keep all Atheist publications on file, no matter what the nature.
Editor's Response to Letter #38 which was mailed earlier to the AAC.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair,
We appreciate your prompt answer to our inquiry but are disappointed, indeed, surprised by the tenor of your response. BIBLICAL ERRANCY provides a reasoned, well-researched reply to claims of biblical infallibility and in no way could it be construed as "dragging Atheists back to the bible." This publication has been accused of many things, but no one has ever implied, much less stated, as much. You said the Bible "needs to be thrown in the trash." Unfortunately, something must first show people why this should be done. Merely asserting as much is not sufficient. BE provides an itemized refutation of the Bible's alleged "validity" and covers virtually every significant concept in the Book. Your belief that "continued jousting with segments thereof gives authentication to that with which you do joust" ignores the fact that there is little substance with which BE does not joust. Read all the back issues as well as those to come and you'll find little left worthy of authentication. Why would millions of people come to atheism when they feel they already have the truth? Before someone is going to adopt another philosophy, he must first be shown the falsity of that which he already possesses. You are saying "come to me or leave religion and the Bible" when those addressed have never been shown why their current beliefs are erroneous.
I've been to atheist meetings before and found that many of those attending are not really atheists in the true sense of the term. They aren't as radical as they think they are and have not left the Bible or religion to the degree they think they have. Their conversations reveal subtle indoctrinations from earlier years, and their attitudes toward biblical preaching represent a wide spectrum. I've learned from experience to be wary of any letter to BE that starts with, "I used to be a Bible-believing Christian, but I now reject the Book as nonsensical." Many are much more under the Book's influence than they realize, but support atheism for a wide variety of personal reasons. BE seeks to reach those with doubts, to reach those who feel the anti-religious viewpoint has noteworthy points, but the Bible, despite its faults, is still worthy of some credibility.
Our publications are not antithetical but complementary. BE provides a detailed explanation of why beliefs of the Bible's proponents are erroneous, and your publication, as well as others of a rational perspective, provides a rational alternative. It's analogous to building a modern structure on a city street. Before the new building can be built, the old must be razed. You can't build until something destroys that which occupies the space desired. BE seeks a mutually agreeable relationship with all rational publications and organizations. For instance, we have been advertizing the Society of Evangelical Agnostics and Crusade Publications for several months because they have been kind enough to advertize BE.
To just ignore the Bible or act as if it did not exist, borders on the absurd. The Book and its followers exercise an enormously negative influence on society. I don't like a lot of governments and administrations in the world today, but I still have to deal with their nonsense. How are people going to combat a Book they know little about and are told to avoid at all costs, when its pernicious influence is everywhere? I don't fear the Book in the least, and am not reticent about confronting its supporters whenever possible. Indeed, I seek dialogue and debate. As long as Falwell's minions are given little reason to doubt that God and His word are on their side, the fierce battles over praying in the schools and the teaching of evolution, the legalizing of abortion, the taxing of church property, etc. will continue unabated. The Bible is the base from which all fundamentalist assaults upon social issues are launched.
As in World War II, bombing the opponents' home base, his source of strength and sustenance, is more effective than concentrating on his armies in the field. A BE booth at the Convention in Kentucky would aid both of us.
Letter #39 from ELR of Long Beach, California (Part a)
Dear Mr. McKinsey
....Enclosed find a check for $14.25.... Obviously (by subscribing) I am not implying that I agree with everything in your publication. On the contrary, I find quite a few things in the issue I received that I would disagree with. From time to time I intend to comment on points I disagree with.... I think you are rendering a unique service; being unique, it should be as perfect as possible (if there were 20 or 30 publications of this kind, improving one of them would not be nearly as important.... On bottom of page 3 in the Dec. 1983 issue you say that the person who wrote to you about devoted Christians "forgot to put Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Al Capone, George Lincoln Rockwell, KKK leaders, and other great minds on the list." To say the least, your comment is ludicrous and outrageous. Hitler was no Christian by any stretch of the imagination (let alone "a devoted" one).... If Mussolini was a Christian, he successfully kept it a secret.... He was utterly ignorant about religion...disdainful toward the humanizing influence of Christianity, a womanizer whose extramarital affairs.... I don't know too much about George Lincoln Rockwell, but it's hard to believe that he could have ignored Hitler's anti-Christian attitude.... Al Capone was a habitual criminal, an occupation hardly compatible with being a "devoted Christian." As to KKK leaders, they are semi-secret figures, so its hard to see why you assume that Christianity has some kind of meaningful influence on their lives.... So the only one on your list who can be proven to have been a Christian in any meaningful sense is Franco... but he was no monster. Whatever his faults were, he deserves credit for resisting Hitler's entreaties to join Germany in WWII.... It should not be forgotten that Franco appointed a Prime Minister (Suarez) and provided for a successor to himself (King Jaun Carlos) who together led Spain back to democracy after the death of Franco....
Editor's Response to Letter #39 (Part a)
Dear ELR. Are you sure it's my views that are "ludicrous"? Let's see what Hitler, whom you deny is a Christian, said in this regard:
HITLER: My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who, once lonely with only a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were, and calling me to fight them, and who, so help me, was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. With boundless love, as a Christian and as a man, I read the passages which relate how the Lord finally gathered His strength and made use of the whip in order to drive the usurers, the vipers, and cheats from the temple. Today 2,000 years later, I recognize with deep emotion Christ's tremendous fight for this world against the Jewish poison. I recognized this most profoundly by the fact that He had to shed his blood on the cross for his fight. As a Christian it is not my duty to permit myself to be cheated, but is my duty to be a champion of truth and of right.... As a Christian I owe something to my own people.... I am a veritable devil and not a Christian if I do not feel compassion and do not wage war, as our Lord did 2,000 years ago, against those who are pillaging and exploiting this poor people (the German people).... Two thousand years ago a man was likewise denounced by this particular race which today is denouncing and blaspheming everywhere.... That man was dragged into court and they said then: He is arousing the people! So he also was "agitating." And against whom? Against "God," they cried. Yes indeed he was agitating against the "god" of the Jews, for that "god" is money. (Munich, April 12, 1922; Voelkische Beobachter, April 22, 1922).
The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation was built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as a basis of national life. (Hitler to the German People: Feb. 1 1933).
I know that here and there the objection has been raised: Yes, but you have deserted Christianity. No, it is not we that have deserted Christianity, it is those who came before us who deserted Christianity.... National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of real Christianity. And we have no other desire than to be true to that position.... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles. (Speech at Koblenz, Aug. 26, 1934).
Hitler was often asked why Nazis use the swastika and replied,
And when it is said to me as many have: How can you carry your heathenish symbol in the van of this struggle when the Christian Cross alone is called to lead it? To this I say: This symbol is not directed against the Christian Cross. On the contrary, it is the political manifestation of what the Christian Cross intends or must intend.... One should from the vary beginnings preserve this Cross from any political contact until the structure of these political parties again becomes worthy of association with this symbol....(Munich, Oct. 25, 1930, Voelkische Beobachter, Oct. 28, 1930).
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-E9EmeFXjk
Adolf Hitler was baptized in a Catholic Church in 1889 and was never excommunicated or in any other way officially censured by the Catholic Church. Hitler frequently referred to God and Christianity in his various speeches and writings. In one 1933 speech, he said that "To do justice to God and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the German Volk." In another he said: "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
JESUS: John 5:24, "I tell you the truth, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.
You stated Mussolini kept his Christian beliefs secret, was utterly ignorant about religion, and disdainful toward Christianity. Yet, at Ouchy he told the press:
My spirit is deeply religious. Religion is a formidable force which must be respected and defended. I am, therefore, against anti-clerical and atheistic democracy, which represents an old and useless toy. I maintain that Catholicism is a great spiritual power.... (Mussolini As Revealed in his Political Speeches, by Quaranta, p.XII).
Moreover, how does being a womanizer prevent one from being a Christian? Beliefs, not deeds, make one a Christian.
As far as the Klan is concerned, their literature extols the Bible and Christ incessantly. Secrecy would no more prevent them from being Christians than it would exclude cardinals from being Christians because they choose the pope in secret.
You admit Franco was a Christian but deny he was a monster. You might want to tell that to the thousands of POW's who died before his firing squads and the thousands of political opponents and prisoners who resisted his dictatorship for nearly 40 years. Democracy returned to Spain despite Franco, not because of him. Those most conservative in matters of religion throughout the world are always the most conservative in matters of politics. And it would be difficult to find people more right-wing, more conservative, than Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and the Klan.
In any event, BE is not a political journal, and atrocious behavior does not prevent one from being a Christian. If bad behavior excluded people from being Christians, then no one would qualify. According to Paul we are all hopelessly corrupt: "For I know that in me dwelleth no good thing" (Rom. 7:18).
Letter #40 from DFS of Sandstone, Minnesota
Dear Mr. McKinsey.
I would like to thank you for all the back issues you sent me and for the current issue. BIBLICAL ERRANCY is one of the most interesting and informative publications I have ever read. I commend you for your excellent research and writing you have done. I am quite pleased with the modest investment I have made in your publication. Whatever it may lack in "slickness" it more than makes up in solid content....
Letter #41 from DFS of Sandstone, Minnesota
...a few days ago I got involved in a discussion with a few true-believers of the born again species, what I call Christfans. Your publication came in very handy. Unfortunately, it seems that facts have no effect on them, not even from the Bible. The history of Christianity, which I am well researched in, they didn't believe either. They kept falling back on the same argument--which went something like this--The Bible has no contradictions, all secular material is wrong because its writers do not understand the Bible. You must believe in Jesus, and then the Holy Ghost will enter you and reveal all to you.... They said that one day the Holy Ghost would enter me and I'd understand and accept. How do you refute such nonsense? Arguing from the Bible does no good. I don't suppose you are out to convert true-believers, but in my position I need to come up with better arguments....
Editor's Response to Letter #41
Dear DFS. You have asked an important question. How do you reach fundamentalists, apologists, and biblicists? I've also experienced this impasse on numerous occasions. After many encounters I've decided to direct my energies, not toward fundamentalists and evangelicals alone, but toward any group of people who will listen. You must thrust your beliefs forward via the media and any other viable mechanism. People won't come to you; you must go to them. Apologists will, then, rise out of the audience to defend the Bible. That's one way to obtain dialogue and expose the Bible. I realized as much while appearing on the radio. When biblicists realize people are hearing about the weaknesses within the Bible, they no longer have the option of remaining silent or walking off. Some will feel compelled to respond.
In summary, one must first learn the Bible's fallacies and then speak to those who will listen. Combine with, or try to create, groups of like-minded individuals and seek to force your views into the limelight. Find a platform, get an audience, step before heterogeneous groups and you'll have an opportunity to debate, expose, and convert. Try to use group pressure rather than working alone. It's not easy to obtain return engagements on the radio, for example, when your host is sympathetic with the opposition. Group pressure and organization is the best answer. Critics must demand a hearing and speak out when denied a voice. A determined, well-researched, aggressive program is sorely needed. Relying upon anti-religious humor, punctuated with descriptions of nonsensical acts and beliefs of religious devotees, and concluding with a well-written lecture on the importance of tolerance and separating church from state is not sufficient.
Letter #42 from Novato, California
Dear Dennis. I an enclosing copies of two recent letters of mine which were printed in our local paper. I hope they meet with your approval, as they are based on your work.... I just finished phoning radio station KGO in San Francisco, which has a talk show host, Rev. Tom Hunter, paid by the station to talk about religion.... I was going to mention how the Bible also supported forced labor, but was cut short before I had a chance. It would certainly be great if KGO would give equal time to someone with your knowledge to counter what Rev. Hunter has to say....
Editor's Response to Letter #42
Dear FM. You are to be commended. You tried to go within the Bible and challenge an apologist on his own ground. You didn't abandon the airways to the opposition. My presence is not really needed. You are on the scene and can do a lot yourself. Gather your data, marshall your arguments, read BE, Joseph Wheless, John Remsburg, Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll and the Bible and demand equal time. If you feel uncomfortable in this role, then find someone you can get support, or devise an alternative. Biblicists must be challenged when they proselytize, and be denied a privileged sanctuary to which they can retreat with impunity. As things stand, the Bible is virtually unopposed throughout most of the country. Many people don't even know there is another side. You'd be surprised at the number of people who defend the Bible with vehemence but are amazingly lacking in knowledge of its contents, and this includes some ministers. "The clergy know that I know that they know that they do not know." (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 2 p. 348). A lot of time and effort is needed, because a lot is at stake. Biblicists have been working relentlessly for decades.
POVERTY
Ignored Teachings (Part One of a Three-Part Series)--For hundreds of years biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible's teachings on ethics, manners, and morality. They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralisms. The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft-noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches. Biblicists practice what can only be described as "selective morality". What they like, they expound; what they don't like, they ignore, even though the validity or strength of one is no less than that of the other. That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all; while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addresed 2,000 years ago. They enjoy quoting the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and some of Paul's preachings, for example, but don't pretend to heed other, equally valid, maxims. The following examples show the selectivity of apologetic morality.
To be a Christian one must be extremely poor--as poor as the proverbial church mouse. The Bible makes this quite clear:
"...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" Luke 14:33
"If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" Matt. 19:21
"Sell your possessions and give alms" Luke 12:33
"But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" Luke 11:41
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" Matt. 6:19-21
"How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" Mark 10:23
"Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matt. 19:23-24
A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21
Paul said, "For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil. 3:8 RSV)
Jesus says,[John 14:15 KJV], "If ye love me, keep my commandments."
It's much easier, and far less painful, to rationalize away clear-cut statements than surrender great wealth because of Biblical injunctions. Paul said, "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content" (1 Tim. 6:8).
The lavish personal wealth of many Christians bears witness to their avoidance of these biblical teachings, Luke 3:11, which says, "who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do like-wise." One can only speculate as to the number of coats Christians have in their closets. Jesus said, "Give to him who asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (Matt. 5:42). Asking any modern Christian individual of any Christian denomination for a sizable portion of his or its wealth would be an exercise in futility. How many biblicists attempt to obey the biblical precept which says, "and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again" (Luke 6:29-30 RSV)? They avoid Matt. 5:40, which says, "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him also have thy cloak." Apologists don't mind quoting the prior verse (Matt. 5:39) about turning the other cheek, because it concerns attitudes and is not concrete; no direct physical denial is involved. Turning one's cheek is far less painful and tangible than turning in dollars. The former is more nebulous and subject to interpretation. Jesus commissioned his twelve disciples to, "provide neither gold nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, not yet staves, for the workman is worthy of his meat" (Matt. 10:9-10). If these were the morally right procedures for the disciples of Christ 2,000 years ago, then they should have some relevance to his disciples of today. But the entourage and wealth accompanying any well-known evangelist on his periodic journeys highlights the inconsistency involved.
Early Christian groups even practiced a form of communal ownership of property. "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods and parted them to all men, as every man had need" (Acts 2:44-45, also note Acts 4:34-37). Yet, except for a few isolated communities, today's biblicists preach the opposite.
In summary, it's not enough to avoid the accumulation of wealth; one must actively seek to eliminate whatever property may come into one's possession. (See also: Acts 20:35, Rom. 12:13, Col. 3:2, Matt. 6:24). In so far as wealth and property are concerned, Christian monks, ascetics, and some factions of the Amish, for example, are far closer to biblical teachings than any of the well-known clergymen or denominations of today. While engaged in dialogue with a minister several years ago, I noted that his Lincoln Continental parked nearby was wholly inconsistent with biblical tenets. After offering the usual apologetic rationalizations (e.g., I live a frugal life and the Bible does not require me to give away what I own), he denounced my motives and left. Neither of his excuses was accurate.
DIVORCE
Second, a true follower of Jesus can neither divorce someone, (a) "So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder"(Matt. 19:6, Mark 10:9), nor marry someone who is divorced, (b) "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" (Matt. 5:32, 19:9, Luke 16:18). There is an exception to the former, however. If the spouse commits adultery, divorce is permissible: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery" (Matt. 5:32). The Bible also says that anyone who obtains a divorce and marries another is an adulterer: "...whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18), which applies to women as well--Mark 10:12. In essence, according to Christ's teachings:
•(1) one can never obtain a divorce, except from an adulterous spouse;
•(2) one can never marry a divorced person, and
•(3) one who obtains a divorce and marries another is committing adultery.
One can only guess at the number of Christians who have ignored these maxims.
A true follower of Jesus can never divorce someone: "So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder"(Matt. 19:6, Mark 10:9).
Nor marry someone who is divorced: "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" (Matt. 5:32, 19:9, Luke 16:18).
There is an exception to the former, however. If the spouse commits adultery, divorce is permissible: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery" (Matt. 5:32).
The Bible also says that anyone who obtains a divorce and marries another is an adulterer: "...whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18), which applies to women as well--Mark 10:12.
In essence, according to Christ's teachings: one can never obtain a divorce, except from an adulterous spouse and one can never marry a divorced person, and one who obtains a divorce and marries another is committing adultery.
Christians ignores these maxims.
George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented: "While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."
Divorce Rate Statistics of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Marriages
Various studies on US rate of divorce show significant differences when a comparison is made in 1st, 2nd and 3rd marriage breakups in America. The marriage breakup rate in America for first marriage is 41% to 50%; the rate after second marriage is from 60% to 67% and the rate in America for 3rd marriage are from 73% to 74%. Reports also say that couples with children have a slightly lower rate of breakup as compared to couples without children. This is due to the fact that being childless is one of the prime causes behind divorce in America. Also, the children of divorced parents are prone to divorcing 4 times more than the children of couples who are not divorced.
PRAYER Third, current attempts to put prayer into schools run directly counter to biblical teachings. In one of his comments on the manner in which one should pray, Jesus said prayer should be a private affair devoid of public display: "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room (or closet) and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret...." (Matt. 6:5-6 RSV). Biblicists violate this on a regular basis and have no intention of correcting their behavior.
It's interesting to note that Paul's maxim that men should pray with their heads uncovered is generally followed because removing one's hat isn't particularly inconvenient. It is easy to follow. "Any man who prays or prophecies with his head covered dishonors his head,...."(1 Cor. 11:4 RSV). On the other hand, Paul's tenet that women must keep their heads covered with a veil during prayer is quite inconvenient and, for this reason, has either been rationalized away or ignored, although it is no less binding than any other moral law in the New Testament: "...but any woman who prays or prophecies with her head unveiled dishonors her head.... For if a woman will not veil herself, then we should cut off her hair: but if it be disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.... Judge for yourself; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered?" (1 Cor. 11:5-13 RSV)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter # 38 from the American Atheist Center of Austin, Texas
(Near the end of Jan., 1984, BE was told by the American Atheist Center that it would be holding a convention in Lexington, Kentucky, in mid-April. We sent a letter to the AAC stating that we would not only like to attend but set up a booth to advertise and distribute BE. The following reply from Ms. O'Hair was received on February 15th). Dennis McKinsey. Thank you for your inquiry. American Atheists feel it is reactionary to do battle on the grounds of the religious. The Bible needs to be thrown into the trash. Your continuing jousting with segments thereof gives authentication to that with which you do joust. One does NOT argue with one's nightmares. The exercise is as the French say, inutile. The Convention in Kentucky has no interest in this at all. Therefore, we will not authorize you to "set up a booth" to publicize and distribute copies of your publication, which drags Atheists back to the Bible--for no good reason. If you want to set up a booth, anywhere, you will need to pay your own way. You will not be permitted to use the facilities for which we have paid. We will not distribute your literature, or give it a place on our book stands. There is no personal or other animosity in this position which we take with respect to your BIBLICAL ERRANCY. There are tactics one uses in a battle and we decline to use these tactics. They take away from the positive thrust of Atheism and the programs which we are trying to use to give Atheists a voice in the culture, on their own, with their own weltanshaung--not in a religious framework. We have instituted an extensive educational program to wean Atheists away, as fast as we can, from that which you promote: a return to the Bible. Enclosed is a $6 check for a subscription to your letter, which will be filed in the American Atheist Library and Archives, Inc. here. Advise cost of back issues and if they have been bound. We keep all Atheist publications on file, no matter what the nature.
Editor's Response to Letter #38 which was mailed earlier to the AAC.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair,
We appreciate your prompt answer to our inquiry but are disappointed, indeed, surprised by the tenor of your response. BIBLICAL ERRANCY provides a reasoned, well-researched reply to claims of biblical infallibility and in no way could it be construed as "dragging Atheists back to the bible." This publication has been accused of many things, but no one has ever implied, much less stated, as much. You said the Bible "needs to be thrown in the trash." Unfortunately, something must first show people why this should be done. Merely asserting as much is not sufficient. BE provides an itemized refutation of the Bible's alleged "validity" and covers virtually every significant concept in the Book. Your belief that "continued jousting with segments thereof gives authentication to that with which you do joust" ignores the fact that there is little substance with which BE does not joust. Read all the back issues as well as those to come and you'll find little left worthy of authentication. Why would millions of people come to atheism when they feel they already have the truth? Before someone is going to adopt another philosophy, he must first be shown the falsity of that which he already possesses. You are saying "come to me or leave religion and the Bible" when those addressed have never been shown why their current beliefs are erroneous.
I've been to atheist meetings before and found that many of those attending are not really atheists in the true sense of the term. They aren't as radical as they think they are and have not left the Bible or religion to the degree they think they have. Their conversations reveal subtle indoctrinations from earlier years, and their attitudes toward biblical preaching represent a wide spectrum. I've learned from experience to be wary of any letter to BE that starts with, "I used to be a Bible-believing Christian, but I now reject the Book as nonsensical." Many are much more under the Book's influence than they realize, but support atheism for a wide variety of personal reasons. BE seeks to reach those with doubts, to reach those who feel the anti-religious viewpoint has noteworthy points, but the Bible, despite its faults, is still worthy of some credibility.
Our publications are not antithetical but complementary. BE provides a detailed explanation of why beliefs of the Bible's proponents are erroneous, and your publication, as well as others of a rational perspective, provides a rational alternative. It's analogous to building a modern structure on a city street. Before the new building can be built, the old must be razed. You can't build until something destroys that which occupies the space desired. BE seeks a mutually agreeable relationship with all rational publications and organizations. For instance, we have been advertizing the Society of Evangelical Agnostics and Crusade Publications for several months because they have been kind enough to advertize BE.
To just ignore the Bible or act as if it did not exist, borders on the absurd. The Book and its followers exercise an enormously negative influence on society. I don't like a lot of governments and administrations in the world today, but I still have to deal with their nonsense. How are people going to combat a Book they know little about and are told to avoid at all costs, when its pernicious influence is everywhere? I don't fear the Book in the least, and am not reticent about confronting its supporters whenever possible. Indeed, I seek dialogue and debate. As long as Falwell's minions are given little reason to doubt that God and His word are on their side, the fierce battles over praying in the schools and the teaching of evolution, the legalizing of abortion, the taxing of church property, etc. will continue unabated. The Bible is the base from which all fundamentalist assaults upon social issues are launched.
As in World War II, bombing the opponents' home base, his source of strength and sustenance, is more effective than concentrating on his armies in the field. A BE booth at the Convention in Kentucky would aid both of us.
Letter #39 from ELR of Long Beach, California (Part a)
Dear Mr. McKinsey
....Enclosed find a check for $14.25.... Obviously (by subscribing) I am not implying that I agree with everything in your publication. On the contrary, I find quite a few things in the issue I received that I would disagree with. From time to time I intend to comment on points I disagree with.... I think you are rendering a unique service; being unique, it should be as perfect as possible (if there were 20 or 30 publications of this kind, improving one of them would not be nearly as important.... On bottom of page 3 in the Dec. 1983 issue you say that the person who wrote to you about devoted Christians "forgot to put Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Al Capone, George Lincoln Rockwell, KKK leaders, and other great minds on the list." To say the least, your comment is ludicrous and outrageous. Hitler was no Christian by any stretch of the imagination (let alone "a devoted" one).... If Mussolini was a Christian, he successfully kept it a secret.... He was utterly ignorant about religion...disdainful toward the humanizing influence of Christianity, a womanizer whose extramarital affairs.... I don't know too much about George Lincoln Rockwell, but it's hard to believe that he could have ignored Hitler's anti-Christian attitude.... Al Capone was a habitual criminal, an occupation hardly compatible with being a "devoted Christian." As to KKK leaders, they are semi-secret figures, so its hard to see why you assume that Christianity has some kind of meaningful influence on their lives.... So the only one on your list who can be proven to have been a Christian in any meaningful sense is Franco... but he was no monster. Whatever his faults were, he deserves credit for resisting Hitler's entreaties to join Germany in WWII.... It should not be forgotten that Franco appointed a Prime Minister (Suarez) and provided for a successor to himself (King Jaun Carlos) who together led Spain back to democracy after the death of Franco....
Editor's Response to Letter #39 (Part a)
Dear ELR. Are you sure it's my views that are "ludicrous"? Let's see what Hitler, whom you deny is a Christian, said in this regard:
HITLER: My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who, once lonely with only a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were, and calling me to fight them, and who, so help me, was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. With boundless love, as a Christian and as a man, I read the passages which relate how the Lord finally gathered His strength and made use of the whip in order to drive the usurers, the vipers, and cheats from the temple. Today 2,000 years later, I recognize with deep emotion Christ's tremendous fight for this world against the Jewish poison. I recognized this most profoundly by the fact that He had to shed his blood on the cross for his fight. As a Christian it is not my duty to permit myself to be cheated, but is my duty to be a champion of truth and of right.... As a Christian I owe something to my own people.... I am a veritable devil and not a Christian if I do not feel compassion and do not wage war, as our Lord did 2,000 years ago, against those who are pillaging and exploiting this poor people (the German people).... Two thousand years ago a man was likewise denounced by this particular race which today is denouncing and blaspheming everywhere.... That man was dragged into court and they said then: He is arousing the people! So he also was "agitating." And against whom? Against "God," they cried. Yes indeed he was agitating against the "god" of the Jews, for that "god" is money. (Munich, April 12, 1922; Voelkische Beobachter, April 22, 1922).
The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation was built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as a basis of national life. (Hitler to the German People: Feb. 1 1933).
I know that here and there the objection has been raised: Yes, but you have deserted Christianity. No, it is not we that have deserted Christianity, it is those who came before us who deserted Christianity.... National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of real Christianity. And we have no other desire than to be true to that position.... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles. (Speech at Koblenz, Aug. 26, 1934).
Hitler was often asked why Nazis use the swastika and replied,
And when it is said to me as many have: How can you carry your heathenish symbol in the van of this struggle when the Christian Cross alone is called to lead it? To this I say: This symbol is not directed against the Christian Cross. On the contrary, it is the political manifestation of what the Christian Cross intends or must intend.... One should from the vary beginnings preserve this Cross from any political contact until the structure of these political parties again becomes worthy of association with this symbol....(Munich, Oct. 25, 1930, Voelkische Beobachter, Oct. 28, 1930).
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-E9EmeFXjk
Adolf Hitler was baptized in a Catholic Church in 1889 and was never excommunicated or in any other way officially censured by the Catholic Church. Hitler frequently referred to God and Christianity in his various speeches and writings. In one 1933 speech, he said that "To do justice to God and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the German Volk." In another he said: "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
JESUS: John 5:24, "I tell you the truth, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.
You stated Mussolini kept his Christian beliefs secret, was utterly ignorant about religion, and disdainful toward Christianity. Yet, at Ouchy he told the press:
My spirit is deeply religious. Religion is a formidable force which must be respected and defended. I am, therefore, against anti-clerical and atheistic democracy, which represents an old and useless toy. I maintain that Catholicism is a great spiritual power.... (Mussolini As Revealed in his Political Speeches, by Quaranta, p.XII).
Moreover, how does being a womanizer prevent one from being a Christian? Beliefs, not deeds, make one a Christian.
As far as the Klan is concerned, their literature extols the Bible and Christ incessantly. Secrecy would no more prevent them from being Christians than it would exclude cardinals from being Christians because they choose the pope in secret.
You admit Franco was a Christian but deny he was a monster. You might want to tell that to the thousands of POW's who died before his firing squads and the thousands of political opponents and prisoners who resisted his dictatorship for nearly 40 years. Democracy returned to Spain despite Franco, not because of him. Those most conservative in matters of religion throughout the world are always the most conservative in matters of politics. And it would be difficult to find people more right-wing, more conservative, than Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and the Klan.
In any event, BE is not a political journal, and atrocious behavior does not prevent one from being a Christian. If bad behavior excluded people from being Christians, then no one would qualify. According to Paul we are all hopelessly corrupt: "For I know that in me dwelleth no good thing" (Rom. 7:18).
Letter #40 from DFS of Sandstone, Minnesota
Dear Mr. McKinsey.
I would like to thank you for all the back issues you sent me and for the current issue. BIBLICAL ERRANCY is one of the most interesting and informative publications I have ever read. I commend you for your excellent research and writing you have done. I am quite pleased with the modest investment I have made in your publication. Whatever it may lack in "slickness" it more than makes up in solid content....
Letter #41 from DFS of Sandstone, Minnesota
...a few days ago I got involved in a discussion with a few true-believers of the born again species, what I call Christfans. Your publication came in very handy. Unfortunately, it seems that facts have no effect on them, not even from the Bible. The history of Christianity, which I am well researched in, they didn't believe either. They kept falling back on the same argument--which went something like this--The Bible has no contradictions, all secular material is wrong because its writers do not understand the Bible. You must believe in Jesus, and then the Holy Ghost will enter you and reveal all to you.... They said that one day the Holy Ghost would enter me and I'd understand and accept. How do you refute such nonsense? Arguing from the Bible does no good. I don't suppose you are out to convert true-believers, but in my position I need to come up with better arguments....
Editor's Response to Letter #41
Dear DFS. You have asked an important question. How do you reach fundamentalists, apologists, and biblicists? I've also experienced this impasse on numerous occasions. After many encounters I've decided to direct my energies, not toward fundamentalists and evangelicals alone, but toward any group of people who will listen. You must thrust your beliefs forward via the media and any other viable mechanism. People won't come to you; you must go to them. Apologists will, then, rise out of the audience to defend the Bible. That's one way to obtain dialogue and expose the Bible. I realized as much while appearing on the radio. When biblicists realize people are hearing about the weaknesses within the Bible, they no longer have the option of remaining silent or walking off. Some will feel compelled to respond.
In summary, one must first learn the Bible's fallacies and then speak to those who will listen. Combine with, or try to create, groups of like-minded individuals and seek to force your views into the limelight. Find a platform, get an audience, step before heterogeneous groups and you'll have an opportunity to debate, expose, and convert. Try to use group pressure rather than working alone. It's not easy to obtain return engagements on the radio, for example, when your host is sympathetic with the opposition. Group pressure and organization is the best answer. Critics must demand a hearing and speak out when denied a voice. A determined, well-researched, aggressive program is sorely needed. Relying upon anti-religious humor, punctuated with descriptions of nonsensical acts and beliefs of religious devotees, and concluding with a well-written lecture on the importance of tolerance and separating church from state is not sufficient.
Letter #42 from Novato, California
Dear Dennis. I an enclosing copies of two recent letters of mine which were printed in our local paper. I hope they meet with your approval, as they are based on your work.... I just finished phoning radio station KGO in San Francisco, which has a talk show host, Rev. Tom Hunter, paid by the station to talk about religion.... I was going to mention how the Bible also supported forced labor, but was cut short before I had a chance. It would certainly be great if KGO would give equal time to someone with your knowledge to counter what Rev. Hunter has to say....
Editor's Response to Letter #42
Dear FM. You are to be commended. You tried to go within the Bible and challenge an apologist on his own ground. You didn't abandon the airways to the opposition. My presence is not really needed. You are on the scene and can do a lot yourself. Gather your data, marshall your arguments, read BE, Joseph Wheless, John Remsburg, Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll and the Bible and demand equal time. If you feel uncomfortable in this role, then find someone you can get support, or devise an alternative. Biblicists must be challenged when they proselytize, and be denied a privileged sanctuary to which they can retreat with impunity. As things stand, the Bible is virtually unopposed throughout most of the country. Many people don't even know there is another side. You'd be surprised at the number of people who defend the Bible with vehemence but are amazingly lacking in knowledge of its contents, and this includes some ministers. "The clergy know that I know that they know that they do not know." (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 2 p. 348). A lot of time and effort is needed, because a lot is at stake. Biblicists have been working relentlessly for decades.