4 Morality,

Issue No. 4, April 1983

COMMENTARY

MORALITY--Defenders of the Bible, such as fundamentalists, never cease criticizing the evils and immoralities of modern society. A return to the Bible is hardly the answer. The Bible is definitely not the fountain from which truth, goodness and purity spring as its proponents would have us believe. Many Biblical verses are permeated with corruption, degeneracy and immorality. Awakening our children on Sunday morning to participate in Biblical readings could easily to that which is being opposed. Much of the Bible dwells on immorality, fosters profanity and honors corruption. If children were not diverted from various parts of scripture, they could easily be influenced by such negative language as the following:

Gen. 38:9 "...and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground."

Lev. 21:20 "... a man that is broken footed or...hath his stones broken."

2 Sam. 16:21 "... and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel."

Ezek. 23:20 "..Yet she increased her harlotry, and doted upon her paramours there, whose members were like those of asses, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts."

Song 5:4 "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him."

Not many people need to be told what "it," "stones," "went unto," "members," and "issue," and "by the hole of the door," are referring to.

One school of apologists alleges that some of these verses are to be understood figuratively, not literally. But what does it matter? The words are equally disgusting and should be kept away from impressionable people. Children, for example, are not going to make subtle distinctions as to intent and meaning.

Other apologist contend: "When the Bible speaks of sin, it describes it in its ugliness, so that disgust and horror enter the heart of the reader. Not once, for a moment, does it leave the high moral level of stern opposition to unrighteousness in all its forms." Bible Difficulties, W. Arndt, p. 63

"Disgust and horror" are clearly produced but where is the "high moral level;" where is the opposition to profanity. The context of each verse shows they have nothing to do with moral teachings.

The following verse aren't going to elevate the morality of society either. If anything they are worse:

Deut. 23:1-2 "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. A bastard shall not enter ..."

2 Kings 18:27 "... that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you."

Prov. 5:19 "... let her breasts satisfy thee at all times;..."

Biblicists allege that the Song of Solomon's infatuation with women's tits comprises part of a love poem between either a man and his wife or Christ and His Church:

Song 1:13 "A bundle of myrrh is my well beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts."

Song 4:5 "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies."

Song 8:10 "I am a wall, and my breasts like towers:..."

But regardless of motive, such language is still offense.

Many other verses could be quoted but the point is made. How could the Bible be a book of goodness, moral teachings and purity when it actually indicts itself:

Prov. 15:26 "... the words of the pure are pleasant words."

Quoting Robert Ingersoll and Ashley Monagu:

"The believers in the Bible are loud in their denounciation of what they are pleased to call the immoral literature of the world; yet few books have been published containing more moral filth than this inspired word of God... Until these passages are expunged from the Old Testament, it is not a fit book to be read by either old or young... There are chapters that no gentleman would read in front of a lady... and the time will come when mankind will wonder that such a book was ever called inspired." "Some of Mistakes of Moses," Ingersoll Works, Vol.2, p. 177

"If the Bible is not obscene, what book is?... The Christian world should never say another word against immoral books until it makes the inspired volume clean. These vile and filthy things were not written for the purpose of conveying and enforcing moral truth but seem to have been written because the author loved an unclean thing. "Some of Mistakes of Moses," Ingersoll Works, Vol.2, p. 178

"THE GOOD BOOK - one of the most remarkable euphemisms ever coined." Ashley Montagu

DIALOG & DEBATE

Letter #4 from Michael Hauenstein of Dayton Ohio (Part 1)

Dear Mr. Mckinsey, Thank you for reading the tract("In Devil's Hell") that I sent you. I hope that you'll also read the tract("Today's Keys to Everlasting Life"), that I've enclosed this time. You have asked me "to respond in kind: Read Biblical Errancy." I have read Issue Number two.

You said that my tract avoided the issue ("your tract avoided the evidence entirely..."), however that is not true. The issue I pointed out (See: Letter #1, Feb. 1983 Issue-ed.), is that you Mr.McKinsey "must be born again." The tract dealt with that subject alone. You need to be saved more than anyone I know. The reason why I say that is because you are so bent on trying to prove the Bible false. The Holy Spirit must really be reproving you of sin, so to avoid the point, you are trying to air condition Hell. There are no air conditioners in hell, its jut hot all the time...

The issue therefore is, are you Mr. McKinsey, born again? Please answer that question, openly. Be open with your readers. The front page of your "periodical"states that you provide a hearing for apologist... Why didn't you print the tract (the first tract he sent) in toto? Why refer to it out of context? You are not providing much of a hearing when you won't present all of the evidence which the other side has to offer!... Having made my point, I will proceed by the grace of God, to correct your periodical....(To Be Continued)

Editor's response to Letter#4 (part I) Since your letter is long, Mike, I will respond to one section at a time in this and subsequent issues. First, I read your small tract, "Today's Key to Everlasting Life," and found it to be erroneous in several major respects. First, it claims to know the specific procedures one must follow in order to be saved. As I showed in the March, 1983 Commentary of Biblical Errancy this can't be done since the Bible is hopelessly inconsistent in this regard. Second, it claims "all have sinned" which clearly contradicts such verses as Gen. 6:9 and Job 1:1 (See Jan. 1983 Issue, p.3). Third the following verses in your tract:

Hebr. 9:27 "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." contradicts:

1Ths. 4:17 "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

2Kgs. 2:11 "... there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

Hebr. 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." (See: Gen. 5:24)

Each of the latter verses clearly shows an instance in which people have gone to God without dying. Fourth, the tract says, "You must admit that you are a sinner who deserves to die and go to hell." According to Christian beliefs this is true of anyone the moment he becomes a human being. But Biblical Errancy demonstrated in January, 1983, issue that Original Sin is patently unjust on its face and could not possibly be sanctioned by a just God. There is not now, never has been, and never will be an adequate answer as to why humanity is being punished(allegedly) for what one man, Adam, did.

"The absurdity of the doctrine known as 'The Fall of Man,' gave birth to that other absurdity known as 'The Atonement.' So that now it is insisted that, as we are rightfully charged with the sin of someone else, we can rightfully be credited with the virtues of another." "Orthodoxy," Ingersoll Works, Vol. 2, p. 370

And fifth, the pamphlet states, "God is Holy and Righteous. There is no sin in Him." Although this may be true of God, it is in direct opposition to "His" Book's description of him. According to "His" Book he not only violated his own Ten Commandments by killing individuals, telling people to lie, causing adultery, and ordering stealing but committed a wide assortment of other despicable acts. (See: Biblical Errancy, March, 1983, p. 5) As Thomas Paine and Robert Ingersoll said:

"A false friend, an unjust judge, a braggart, a hypocrite, and tyrant, sincere in hatred, jealous, vain and revengeful, false in promise, honest in curse, suspicious, ignorant, infamous and hideous-such is the God of the Pentateuch." "Some Mistakes of Moses, Ingersoll Works

"All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not God, just and good, but of a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes." The Age of Reason", Thomas Paine, p.198

"... A book so full of contradictions and wickedness could not be the Word of God, and...we dishonor God by ascribing it to him." The Life and Works of Thomas Paine, Vol. 9, p. 177

"...for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it." The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, p.199

"... as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and injustice to God. I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit." The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, p.199

"I seek to rescue the reputation of the Diety." "What We Must Do To Be Saved," Ingersoll's Work, Vol. 1, p.470

You stated in your letter, Mike, that the issue is, "You must be born again." But that is by no means the issue. The issue is, "Is the book from which that statement comes, valid? Is it the word of God?" That's the real issue. If it isn't God's Word, who cares what it says. It's no more inspired and deserves no more credence than any other book. Thomas Pain could not have said it better: "... but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and can not be admitted as proof of anything." The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, p.89

You say I need to be saved. But the truth is, you need to be aware of the fact that you have accepted a book, adopted its precepts and expounded its teachings without investigating its validity or performing a reasonable intelligent critique of its contents. Apparently you are so desperate for something to believe in that you are willing to minimize or ignore all contrary information. As I told some college students recently after a protracted discussion, "As long as it looks good, sounds good, feels good, and seems to make sense, you really don't care whether it is true or false. Having something to believe in is more important to you than the accuracy of that which you believed." Francis Bacon, the philosopher said it well: "Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true."

You say I am "bent on trying to prove the Bible false." In truth, Mike, I am trying to awaken people to the tremendous number of problem contained within Scripture. For several years I have been sending a letter of introduction to call-in radio stations which says, in part, "Since the 1960's most of my time has been devoted to a searching analysis of the Bible. Like Thomas Paine and Robert Ingersoll, I was disturbed by the large number of difficulties contained therein and decided to initiate a calm, dispassionate presentation of that which was not being exposed to the laity. My intent was not to injure people's feelings but to inform. Once individuals have the data, only they can decide how it should be employed." I also stated a fundamental judicial tenet that, "People can only formulate an informed reasoned analysis of any subject when given both pro and con information." On the other hand, Mike, those representing your position, especially the evangelicals, are bent on making sure people are allowed to hear only one point of view. When did you ever hear a preacher on radio or telivision state the Bible was mistaken in some respect. I'm not "bent" in any direction, Mike. I'm trying to straighten matters out. The world's conditions are bent enough already; they don't need any assistance.

You say the "Holy Spirit must really be reproving me of sin." I think you had better consult the Holy Spirit again, Mike. Since when has he been driving people away from "God's Word." When and where does the Bible relate an instance in which the Holy Spirit punished someone by urging him to go elsewhere. Incidentally, in regard to one of your comments, I hope you didn't mean to question my integrity. Neither of us has any reason to doubt the decency of the other. Ad hominen arguments prove nothing, are irrelevant, and only generate ill will. So let's stay with the Book and not shift the discussion to personal comments.

You accuse me of wanting to "air-condition" hell, while all I'm trying to do is let some fresh air into the minds of many. You ask me to open up to my readers and imply I failed in this respect by not publishing your tract in toto. As I stated in the March 1983 Issue, copying extended tracts such as yours is not practical (See: Editor's Note in Issue #3). Moreover, so many of your tracts fallacies have already been exposed that little can be accomplished by printing the rest. Why discuss the remaining secondary information. I have been providing you with a hearing, Mike, and will continue to do so. So will you please relate one instance in which your tract was quoted out-of-context or were denied an adequate hearing.

Letter #4 Continues: You say the "Elijah revived at the time of the Transfiguration." I'd say that in the context of your sentence that the word "revived" meant "came back to life." Yet you say on page two, line 32, that Elijah never died! If he didn't die, how did he revive?

Editor's Response to Letter #4 Good Question, Mike! That's the most intelligent comment you have made. But don't ask me; ask the Bible. I've wondered how apologists resolve this contradiction. I didn't say Elijah never died; the Bible says as much (2 Kings 2:11). I never said Elijah rose from the dead; the Bible shows as much (Matt. 17:3). I am merely repeating the Biblical account. If you insist that Elijah never died and, thus, never came back to life at the time of the Transfiguration, then why was he mentioned along with Moses who did return to life. The problem is, "Does Matt. 17:3 mean Elijah rose from the dead." The context seems to say yes.

Letter #4 Continues: You say, "How could Jesus be the savior of all mankind when he couldn't even save himself." That's how He was the Savior of Mankind, He gave himself for us to pay for our sins. In a sense-Jesus couldn't save Himself from dying on the cross, if any person was to ever be born again, because Jesus had to make the sacrifice which would pay for the sins we've committed against God.

Editor's Response to Letter #4 Mike, you just ignored what I wrote in Feb. 1983 issue on page 3. How could Jesus have been giving himself for mankind when he said on the cross, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me. Clearly he was not dying willingly for anyone and was not "giving himself for mankind. You keep saying he is dying for you when he says he isn't. Why don't you believe him.

What do you mean by, "In a sense Jesus couldn't save himself." Either he could or he couldn't. There is no inbetween. And his words clearly show he couldn't, although he wanted to.(Part II of Letter #4 will be in next month's issue.

Letter #5 from Abigail Brown of Fort Worth, Texas Dear Mr. McKinsey, Even if every copy of the Bible were destroyed and there was no way to reproduce the Bible again, the story and message of Jesus Christ would live. It will continue to live and to grow, as long as the world needs love. Every aspect of creation needs care and concern (love). Survival of life itself is in jeapardy. I send this sermon(a copy is attached-ed) in hope it can get through to you.

Editor's Response to Letter #5 Dear Abigail, I'm sorry to tell you that of all the apologetic letters I have received your approach is among the weakest. What have you proved? Nothing! What evidence have you provided? None! Where is your data?All you have done is utter some assertions that make you feel good. You haven't even bothered to support your position with some Biblical verses. I might just as well say I am positive I will be elected president of the United States in 40 years. Now prove this false. How do you know what is going to occur until it's happened. How do you know the message of Jesus would live on if the Bible were destroyed and couldn't be reproduced. But even more importantly, who cares. The question is not whether the Bible's message will endure, but whether it is accurate. Continued support by the majority doesn't prove it is truth. To quote a wit: "Majorities mean nothing: during the Flood only one man knew enough to get out of the rain." The majority wants to hang a man at a lynching but that doesn't make it right.

I agree with you that "living" aspects of creation need love and survival itself is in jeopardy, but what has that to do with the Bible's truthfulness. The need for love doesn't prove Jesus is the answer; it only causes some people to look to him for love.

As far as the sermon you sent me is concerned, it is difficult to see how it could get through to anybody in light of its glaring inaccuracies. Proof for this is shown by looking at a statement on page 2. It says, "He (Jesus-ed) did not believe there was a devil, but he believed that power was demoniac." Yet, Jesus not only believed the devil existed but had conversations with him (Matt. 4:3-10, Luke 4:3-8).

Letter #6 from Paul Hutchinson of Cincinnati, Ohio The fact that present-day individuals still base their political, social and even economic philosophies and outlooks on overt and demonstrable false pronouncements of ancient figmental deities is alarming to say the least. And although I would never deny anyone the right of free expression and belief, your efforts, Dennis are precious in that they point out blatant falsehoods in what far too many people have for far too long held absolute, uncontestable truths. The overall importance of our philosophies, religious or otherwise, are far greater than one would automatically assume. Our outlooks often determine how we observe, interpret and react to our environments and ourselves, and it is mostly for this reason that it is important our philosophies stand in accord with the available facts-an uncommon occurrence. I heartily salute your efforts to separate fact from fiction. If all had your desires to better know and understand our complex world, there's little doubt it would be much more enjoyable place to live. Keep up the good work (and God be with you).

Editor's Response to Letter #6 What can I say, Paul! Your kindness is exceeded only by your wisdom.

Letter # 7 from BR of St. Cloud, Minnesota I received your issue #2(Feb.) and found it to be extraordinary. It has long been my belief that the Christians have to be defeated on their own turf (that is, Christian who seek to convert) which is the Bible itself. So sign me up for six months(and may I have a copy of No.1 as well?) My check is enclosed.

Editor's Response to Letter #7 Dear BR: I think we both agree with Paine who said, "I will not go out of the Bible for proof against the supposed authenticity of the Bible. False testimony is always good against itself." The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, p. 105

Letter #8 from M. Potts of New York, New York Sorry to keep you waiting on this subscription, it was one of the many waiters on the pile. Anyway, here we go for six months. Love your article, keep up the good work mate. This is great stuff! By the way. I've only gone as far as No.2 so could you follow on from there please. Thanks again for the wonderful information. (A subscription was enclosed)

Letter # 9 from Rev. Heins of Wisconsin Dennis: I like the material you're putting in the newsletter. I'd like to try and give it a shot to publish some working manuals for Bible study. There must be some way to get the message out that Biblical interpretation must be based on other than literal interpretation. Keep up the good work!