Issue #174-Be wearey of Freethinker Compliments Ou

Biblical Errancy Issue #174-Be wearey of Freethinker Compliments Our Book in Article "Stand By Holy Writ," Virgin Birth, Earth Rotating & Gravitation, Unitarians, 3 Days/3 Nights, Supporter Debates on Net, Jesus Tempted?

Nov 10, '08 2:56 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #174 June 1997, Editor: Dennis McKinsey



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



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



COMMENTARY

This months issue will open with a review of our Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy by the editor of a British publication and conclude with some letters from our readers


REVIEW

Peter Brearey, editor of The Freethinker in Britain, wrote the following article on page 2 of his December 1996 issue. He entitled it "Stand by Holy Writ!" and said,

"I do not allow Christians to treat their Bible like an elderly sack of potatoes from which they may select the more edible spuds while disregarding the rotten ones. They must be made to stand by each fetid jot, not to mention every absurd tittle, of the Scriptures - otherwise it is too easy for all those nice religionists as well as the horrid fundamentalists to perpetuate their ghastly myths. Fortunately, I have Professor Charles Ryrie, of the Dallas Theological Seminary, on my team: 'Can one be a biblicist and deny inerrancy? Not if the Bible teaches its own inerrancy ... If the Bible contains some errors, no matter how few or many, how can one be sure that his understanding of Christ is correct? ... Even if the errors are in supposedly minor matters, any error opens the Bible to suspicion on other points that may not be so minor. If inerrancy falls, other doctrines will fall, too.' In other words, if Adam and the sin of man are denied by the liberals, then the matter of why Jesus died on the cross - the cornerstone of Christian belief - is brought into question, if not actually proven to be useless.

Ryrie is quoted in The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, almost 600 pages of information, comment and live ammunition for people of our sort, which has been published by Prometheus at £42 (well, what do you think Christmas-present book tokens are for?); it is the work of Dennis McKinsey.

Mr. McKinsey quotes many contemporary Christian writers only to drown them in a potent brew of erudition, irony, and just a hint of cruelty: The Freethinker style, exactly.

But for those of us involved in the day-to-day battle against superstition, the Encyclopedia's real strength is its index: at a glance it is possible to select a matter of current moment and show the Christians what they must believe about it if they are not to reject Holy Writ and thus lay themselves open to the threat of their Jesus' dearly beloved Hell.

Slavery, for example, is still a live issue (it is a way of life in Pakistan and many other Islamic lands, as well as in areas of India), and in seconds we can prove New Testament support for that venerable institution. There are many references, but Titus 2:9-10 is a goodie: 'Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God.'

We might also use Mr. McKinsey's work to help those homosexuals who imagine - who pathetically insist - that there is a place for them in the Church. Again, there are several references, but the unequivocal Leviticus 20:13 is probably the most effective, for it specifically states that any male who lies with another male as with a woman has committed an abomination and should be killed. So - how can gays who give natural expression to their feelings be valid priests, ... 'marry' in church, ... legitimately take Communion?

And what of those sad women who labor under the illusion that they are valid priests (even bishops!) of the Church? Paul is, of course, notorious for his order that 'women keep silent in the churches, for it is not permitted them to speak,' and Peter insisted: 'Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.'

Most non-RC Christians are sniffy about the Vatican's ban on divorce, but Rome's stand is entirely biblical. Protestants - not excluding our at-it-like-knives Royals - should note what Jesus says in Luke 16:18: 'Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, commiteth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband commiteth adultery.'

Think of a subject, and it's there: long hair (men can't have it: 1 Cor. 11:14); planning for the future (don't do it: Matt. 6:25-34), and the pious Mr. Blair's family values: 'If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple'--Luke 14:26.

God's cruelties are cataloged - 'Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women' Ezek. 9:6 - and we have the many, many biblical contradictions: was the color of Our Lord's crucifixion robe scarlet (Matthew) or purple (Mark and John)? A small matter? Not really - for, as the conservative Christian Professor Ryrie avers, 'any error opens the Bible to suspicion on other points that may not be so minor ....'

Some Humanists believe that the war for which this Encyclopedia provides such excellent ordnance has been won. They must be deceiving themselves over the number of believing Christians in the world - and, sadly, some are so intellectually dishonest as to collude with the liberal superstitionists by allowing them to snatch the less corrupt vegetables from the bag of nastiness.

Do, please, get this Encyclopedia. It is obtainable on order from all book shops: ISBN 0-87975-926-7. In case of difficulty, contact Prometheus UK at 10 Crescent View, Loughton, Essex IG I 0 4PZ (telephone 0 1 81 5082989). Certainly your public library should be asked to order a copy. (It can also be obtained at our address on page 6 for $52.20--Ed.).

All the big issues are dealt with - the false science of the Scriptures ... the empty prophecies ... the foolishness surrounding the alleged life, death, and resurrection of Jesus ... all are taken apart, with the Bible itself as the principal tool of destruction. Equally fascinating are the smaller, sharper barbs: Matthew 13:31-32 (RSV) says: 'The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which ... is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree.' In fact, as Mr. McKinsey points out: 'The mustard seed is not only not the smallest of all seeds, because the orchid seed, for example, is much smaller, but young trees are not shrubs and shrubs don't grow into trees. You would have expected the Creator of all things to have known that."


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #722 from CK of New Jersey (Part a)

Dear Dennis. As mentioned in the past, I think it behooves us who criticize the absurdities found in the Bible to be accurate in our own statements of fact, lest we be dismissed as ignorant ourselves. A couple of points come up in regard to issue 173: You say that "any reasonably informed liberal knows that virgin births are not only possible but quite common." While in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination certainly allow for virgin births, one wonders how common they are. Of course, you may have a different definition, but I would think that a "virgin birth" can only be one in which the mother is a virgin, that is, NEVER had sex, rather than merely that this pregnancy was not the result of sex. I would think that most women who go through the high-tech stuff had tried the normal way to become pregnant, and when this failed, went the high-tech route. Even if this is not the case, I don't imagine a large percentage of the population remaining virgins in any case. The Biblicists will also raise an uproar over the fact that it would be a miracle if 2000 years ago a virgin birth took place, lacking today's technology.

Editors Response to Letter #722 (Part a)

Dear CK. Your conception of this matter takes us back to the point I raised in an issue long ago. What is a Virgin Birth? To you it can only mean a birth emanating from one who has never engaged in coitus. To me it means a birth emanating from one who did not engage in coitus at the time, although that person may have engaged in coitus previously. With respect to the birth at issue, it was virginal. Under your definition what would you call a birth emanating from a prostitute who had no contact with a male in the instance being considered. To you that is not a a virgin birth, while to me it is. The birth was virginal, even if the person yielding the baby was not. We are talking about a virgin birth, not a birth from a virgin. It is the birth that matters, not the person yielding the birth. Remember, its known as the Virgin Birth, not the Virgin Conceiver.

Second you say, "I would think that most women who go through the high-tech stuff had tried the normal way to become pregnant, and when this failed, went the high-tech route. Even if this is not the case, I don't imagine a large percentage of the population remaining virgins in any case." We are not dealing in percentages. If virgin births are physically and scientifically possible, then they are not miracles.

Third, you say, "Biblicists will also raise an uproar over the fact that it would be a miracle if 2000 years ago a virgin birth took place, lacking today's technology." What people thought then or think now is immaterial. The fact is that a virgin birth is not a miracle because it does not violate any scientific laws. Thousands of years ago people thought an eclipse was a miracle and according to your thinking it must have been because that is the way they perceived it.

Letter #722 Concludes (Part b)

More substantive: As a nonscientist you should not have a "high degree of confidence that if the centrifugal force caused by the earth's rotation at approximately 1,000 miles an hour were to cease, the results would be incalculable and result in the death of virtually every living organism on the planet. The power of gravity would take quantum leaps, causing every living thing to be pulled downward with horrendous force." No such thing would happen, as evidenced by the fact that people can travel to the north or south pole, where there is no centrifugal counteraction to gravity. At that point people don't collapse to the ground. The rotation of the earth there is merely like being on a turntable rotating at 1 rev per day. People weigh under an ounce more at the poles than at the equator. Of course if the Earth stopped rotating all of a sudden, by some miraculous intervention that affected only the solid body of the earth, then anything not fastened down would indeed find itself shooting eastward at 1000 miles per hour at the equator relative to the earth's surface, or over 700 miles per hour at the latitudes of the 48-states, not to mention the 1000 mile-per-hour (or 700-mph at our latitudes) winds. But gravity would not be hugely increased nor would huge downward pressures result.

Editors Response to Letter #722 (Part b)

We have been contacted by several people who appear to be well informed on this topic judging by the number of computations, equations, and statistics accompanying their depiction of the physics involved. They assure me, and have provided sufficient information to confirm their assertion, that there would be no appreciable increase in gravity if the earth were to cease rotating and all centrifugal force ended as well. Not being a physicist I will defer to their judgment and write off the source from which I obtained the idea that the results would be dramatic as ill-informed. This is purely a scientific question and I am more than willing to accept whatever informed scientists conclude. Your simple but poignant reference to what does not happen at the North Pole is enough to convince me that although the earth is rotating at 1,000 miles per hour its not as important as I thought because of the sheer magnitude of the planet.

There are times to hold them and times to fold them and this issue belongs in the latter category as far as I am concerned. Anyone who lets his ego supersede compelling evidence and good judgment is guilty of the very shortcoming we so often attribute to biblicists. The only person who never errs verbally is one who never speaks at all. I remember quite well my voice of the turtle faux pas many years ago in which I interpreted the word turtle as referring to the reptile rather than a turtle dove. As I have said before, I may not be perfect, but I'm light years ahead of my opposition.

Letter #723 from JS of Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan (Part a)

Dear Dennis: Letters #707 (Issue #170) and #371 (Issue #90) are probably my two most favorite letters ever to have appeared in BE. Both letters compliment you on your exquisite logic and on your role as a model thinker for others. I love BE precisely because I have always believed such letters to be true. For instance, your remarks over the years about the likes of Madalyn O'Hair "prove" to me that you are above petty, cliquish politics and "tell it like it is" no matter whom you might offend. I admire that.

How utterly disappointed and depressed I am, therefore, at your response to my own Letter #709 (Issue #170). I stated that Unitarians believe whatever they want to and expend enormous amounts of energy justifying their beliefs. Your response was lame when you said many Unitarians "are not going to be very happy with your comparison between them and fundamentalist Christians"! No kidding. But so what? Does this now suggest that Dennis McKinsey is afraid of offending the Unitarians?

Editors Response to Letter #723 (Part a)

Dear JS. I don't see how my response can be considered lame, when all I was doing was relating what I think the Unitarian view of your reply would be. How is that lame? That is probably how they would feel if you equated them to fundamentalists.

You say, "Does this now suggest that Dennis McKinsey is afraid of offending the Unitarians?" I didn't say anything in regard to the Unitarians one way or the other. How did I get drawn into this? Sounds like you are trying to get me to criticize the Unitarians for something or other and attacking me for timidity if I don't.

Letter #723 Continues (Part b)

I want you to state, on the record, what you think of Unitarians. A few months ago, their national magazine carried an article asserting that people should believe whatever is "useful" to them emotionally. People should believe whatever helps them get through the day. Unitarian preachers quote from the Bible regularly, picking out those parts that appeal to them, and ever-so-piously "explaining" those parts that do not. And funny thing, a lot of the "bad" portions of the Bible (such as Matthew 5s "turn the other cheek," which Thomas Paine derides in Part II of The Age of Reason) the Unitarians preach as appropriate modes of conduct!

Editors Response to Letter #723 (Part b)

As was stated some time ago, particular denominations are not a concern of ours, since their positions vary so widely, and few churchgoers have a wider variance of internal beliefs than the Unitarians. They range all over the spectrum. If we proceed to critique their beliefs and behavior, we might as well focus on the others as well. And that is not what biblical criticism in general and BE in particular is all about.

Letter #723 Concludes (Part c)

A new book, just published by Beacon Press (their publishing arm), teaches children about "all the creation myths of the world, including the "scientific" myth of the big bang. An advertisement for the book says that each myth is "true" in the appropriate circumstance. For example, in church the religious myths are "true," but in school the scientific myths are "true." And no myth is inherently superior to any other. To assert one over the other would be arrogant!

To be totally honest with you, Dennis, I have had an easier time reasoning (Isaiah 1:18) with fundamentalist Christians than I have had with Unitarians. The Unitarians are, in my opinion, messed up in their brains. They deny the validity of logic itself, whereas fundamentalists (with a few exceptions) think logically. The fundamentalists merely ignore evidence which would, logically, lead to conclusions they dislike. The Unitarians are the flip-side of the fundamentalists: they accept all the evidence (they preach from science books equally as often as the Bible, the Mishnah, etc.), but they refuse to accept the conclusions to which the evidence logically leads!

I think BE should take a bold stand against all unreasonableness, not just that of fundamentalist Christians.

Editors Concluding Response to Letter #723 (Part c)

Are you sure you want to say Fundamentalists (with a few exceptions) think logically? I have no doubt some of our readers will take exception to that observation, JS. Although I certainly agree with your last sentence, we should still stay reasonably close to the Bible, since that's our primary area of interest.


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #724 from KF of Lancaster, Pennsylvania

This is my Easter Message. I am sorry to inform all of you gullible Christians, that despite what preachers, popes, and pastors have been yammering about for years, Jesus Christ is still dead and buried, and Christianity is a fraud.

Jesus, of course, was said to be the "Lord" and most every Christian believes this still. Jesus said, "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt 12:40). Jesus could not have lied, because Christians insist he was sinless and lying is a sin. But, unfortunately, both he and the church forgot that according to biblical truth, a day to the Lord is 1000 years. As 2 Peter 3:8 says, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." When Jesus said he would be in the heart of the earth for 3 days, he meant it. And since 3 days is 3000 years to the Lord, he's still there. Happy Easter!

Editors Response to Letter #724

I see you are operating on the premise that if biblicists can repeatedly use 2 Peter 3:8 to expediently escape from a dilemma, you can use it to create one. Interesting point! Touché!

Letter #725 from RH of Dayton, Ohio

On my Dayton Freenet Chat board, there is a young man, Michael, who usually posts "Today's Bible Verse," to which I try to respond if there is a reason to believe the verse needs clarification from a nonbeliever's point of view. Here is an example of this sort of exchange.

One of my constant themes on the chat board is that hell represents a great moral void in New Testament teachings, so I was recently surprised to see Michael post as "Today's Bible Verse," Matthew 18:34-35 which says, "Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay back the whole debt. So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart."

To this I replied,

Jesus here speaks about how the master of the story makes a "just" punishment and yet Jesus doesn't condemn the master. The method is torture! Does Jesus speak out against this form of discipline? Not at all! He tells us that his heavenly father is going to torture those who are not able to forgive. Maybe I am interpreting too much here, but I suspect any god like the one in the Bible is going to develop tortures much deeper and more heinous than any human slave master.

Moreover, it does not end there! I do not think people should be tortured for mistreating other people (Jesus here shows that he disagrees with me). I do not think people should be tortured for failing to forgive one another (Jesus is saying the god of the Bible disagrees with me).

In fact, I think torture is never right. I don't care if it does have Biblical support. Any god who thinks it is dandy to torture other creatures is not entitled to belief by me.

Even if one forgives others, but still has the "wrong" religion, he gets tortured forever. Live a good life? Very nice. Forgive your neighbors? OK, that's good too. But you were raised in the Muslim faith? Eternal torture for you, pal. This system is based on ancient human ideas of vengeance and cruelty. It stinks.

I have been making this sort of argument for months and inviting people to tell me their views on torture in hell. (One liberal Christian did say she didn't believe the hell parts of the Bible.)

After a day of silence following my above post, I wrote the following message:

Well, I am a little disappointed in my Biblicist chat board friends, but I am not surprised that no one wanted to discuss yesterday's verses. There was vigorous discussion back and forth the day before, with good clarity and good will (at least from the pro-Bible side), on the issue of how well or poorly Jesus got along with his mom and pop. But this is, I think even my loyal opponents will agree, a minor topic when compared with the one ignored yesterday, which has to do with what the Bible's god has arranged for the dead. In the verses posted by Michael, Jesus seems to accept the use of torture on earth and support the torture his father has arranged in the hereafter.

I have heard from other discussants about how hell is not really going to be a blazing place and how we all have the opportunity to avoid it. I understand that this is a topic that makes some believers feel uncomfortable, especially in view of the uncompromising tone of the verses Michael supplied us with yesterday. (Once again, Michael, you have my thanks for your work.) It is obvious from those verses that Jesus wants us to know that the Bible's god thinks that torturing some people after death is just the way to handle things. The conclusion that this is so and the connected conclusion, which I drew, that those who believe in the "wrong" faith are to be among the tortured is also inescapable, if you accept the Bible as true.

So, by your silence, my friends, are you showing your support for such a system of torture? I know that none of you would torture anyone yourself, and that you would recommend that I and everyone believing religions other than yours should reform, adopt Christianity, and thus avoid the torture which your Bible says is in store for us if we do not. I take all this for granted, and I thank you heartily for your good will. But do you feel that the god described in the Bible, who is supposed to be just and loving, would set up a system of torture for any reason? Torture for having the wrong religion? What comfort is there for you in holding this idea? I assume that you do not see yourselves as liable for torture, but you only feel you are going to gain infinite happiness. But how will you ever be able to be infinitely happy if you know such a cruel system has barbarically been imposed on others simply because they believed the wrong way? The system sounds disgusting to me. Doesn't it disgust you?

I am not at all saying that your silence indicates consent with my ideas; indeed, I will completely understand if the enormity of the injustice (at least, I see it as an injustice) reflected in this system makes it impossible to discuss it with me. If you would rather not address this, I can understand why. I think, quite frankly, it is the strongest argument I have against the metaphysics and the eschatology proclaimed by the Bible. In my opinion, any god who plans the torture of humans, for any reason, is no god but a monster. Such a "god" is the product of ancient ignorance and cruelty, unworthy of belief from modern thinking humans. I am glad that there is no scientific evidence that such a thing exists. I do not know how those whose faith tells them it does exist can find this sort of monster to be a comfort.

A few days after saying this I received some verses assuring me that God is love, and so on, But in my opinion they had little to do with the moral problem posed by a god who arranges torture for humans.

Letter #726 from GN of Scottsdale, Arizona

I received your latest newsletter today and I think there is a scripture that states Jesus was "tempted in all things." However, the part about experiencing the "whole gamut of Satan testing" is an addition. (Hebrews 4:15). One might assume that if Jesus was tempted in all things that he endured the whole gamut of Satan testing, but the whole idea is absurd anyway. Jesus was not married; therefore, he could not have been tempted in the way of adultery, or have been tempted to commit spousal abuse. He did not have children; therefore, he did not face the temptation of incest or child abuse. He did not live to an old age or suffer the aches and pains that would tempt him in the way of euthanasia. He was not born in poverty; therefore, he was not tempted to steal. Since he was supposedly an only child, he would not have been tempted to sibling jealously and perhaps even hatred. There is not one shred of evidence that Jesus was tempted in "all" ways. How about drug abuse? Abortion?

Thanks for all your information over the years. I love every issue.

Editors Response to Letter #726

Dear GN. You say, "I think there is a scripture that states Jesus was 'tempted in all things'" which is an accurate reference to Heb. 4:15 ("but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin"). But I interpreted that as meaning the Bible actually related instances of Jesus being tempted in everything while I am aware of little in this regard.

Although I agree with the general thrust of your argument, GN, you might want to modify or replace a few of your points. Jesus did have siblings according to some verses in the gospels (Matt. 13:55, Mark 6:3) and some would say you do not have to be married to be an adulterer. As long as one of the parties involved is married that is sufficient. And his birth in a manger allegedly among animals would imply being born into poverty to some.

But be that as it may, the central thrust of your message remains valid. There is no way Jesus could have been tempted in all things. As you say, he couldn't very well have been tempted to beat his wife when he had none.

Letter #727 from JK of Lynn, Indiana

Hi Dennis. Enclosed is the March issue of Biblical Errancy. I sent it to you to show you the condition of it when I received it. (The issue was torn up and tracked over pretty bad.--Ed). This is not the first time that this kind of thing has happened. Several weeks ago I received a post card and someone peeled a layer right across the message on the card so that it could not be deciphered. It appears to me that there is some sort of brain-damaged fundamentalist who has access to the Post Office mail room and when any mail that's not oriented to his mind-warped religion comes by, he attempts to destroy it. None of the junk mail that I have received so far has had so much as a bent corner, but mail from you and several others that I receive that appear to be anti-Christian seems to get damaged in some way. Now, you might say that I should report this type of vandalism to the Post Office. I have tried that gimmick and you either get a brush off or they give you a bunch of forms to fill out, and that's the last you hear of it. If you follow up on it, they will tell you it's still under investigation and eventually the complaint fades away into the wind. Usually your newsletter arrives between the 5th or 10th of the month, but this one arrived on the 25th. The others arrive anywhere from 10 to 15 days late also, so I surmise that there must be a skunk in the wood pile, to use an apt phrase. But maybe I'm insulting a poor defenseless animal so I apologize to the skunk. I would appreciate it if you would send me a replacement and should there be a charge let me know and I will reimburse the cost. Thank you.

Editors Response to Letter #727

Dear JK. I have had the same kind of experiences and feelings over the years but nothing has been definitely proven. So I have been compelled to reluctantly accept whatever occurs. There really isn't much you can do other than filling out some forms which seem to accomplish little or nothing. I don't know if I am being sabotaged, some equipment malfunctioned, or someone just goofed, and I cant remember ever having received a definitive reply. Some postal employees did manage to retrieve one of two lost tapes several years ago; however, I recently sent a video tape to New York for viewing by a prominent anti-religious organization and all I got back from the post office was its shredded wrapper and some apologies with the usual forms to complete.

As far as your personal plight is concerned, we will certainly send you a replacement at no charge with our condolences. Having been in the same predicament I know how you feel. But, unfortunately, there is nothing I can do. My position is no more secure than yours. About the only thing we can both do is grin and bear it, while carrying on.

Letter #728 from LR of Toledo, Ohio

Dear Dennis McKinsey. After reading your thought-provoking, stimulating and wonderful publication, I have decided to subscribe immediately, for the intelligence and perception that you offer to one who, long ago, gave up on supernatural beliefs in spooks, angels, demons, and apocalyptic gobbledygook