Post by Admin on Oct 15, 2012 13:18:15 GMT -8
Biblical Errancy Issue #156- Dan Barker's Pamphlet Why Jesus Regarding Peaceableness, Family Values, Justice, Morality, Reliability, and Role Modeling, DA Attacks Publishing Compliments of BE, Perfection & God again, Nephilim
Nov 10, '08 12:36 PM
by ¢¾ Denise for everyone
Issue #156 Editor: Dennis McKinsey
Dec. 1995
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A national periodical focusing on Biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY
Having obtained permission from Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, we're printing the following abbreviated version of his pamphlet entitled WHY JESUS, some of which came from BE according to Dan. He is a former fundamentalist minister who is quite knowledgeable with respect to Scripture and provides chapter and verse to buttress many of his points. Because fundamentalists and evangelicals have been talking incessantly in recent years about the importance of Jesus as a role model and in the maintenance of "family values," the following is more rele-vant than ever. Dan states,
"Jesus has been held in high regard by Christians and non-Christians alike. Regardless of whether he existed in history, or whether he was divine, many have asserted that the NT Christ character was the highest example of moral living. Many believe his teachings, if truly understood and followed, would make this a better world. Is this true? Does Jesus merit the widespread adoration he has received? Let's look at what he said and did.
WAS JESUS PEACEABLE AND COMPASSIONATE? --The birth of Jesus was heralded with "Peace on Earth," yet Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword" (Matt. 10:34), "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:36), "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27). In a parable, but spoken of favorably. the burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth..., and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
Jesus looked at his disciples "with anger" (Mark 3:5) and attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15). He showed his respect for life by drowning innocent animals (Matt. 8:32) and refused to heal a sick child until pressured by the mother (Matt. 15:22-28).
The most revealing aspect of his character was his promotion of eternal torment. "The Son of man (Jesus himself) shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 13:41-42). "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched" (Mark 9:43). Is this nice? Is it exemplary to make your point with threats of violence? Is hell a kind and peaceful idea?
DID JESUS PROMOTE 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). "I am come to set man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" (Matt. 10:35-36). When one of his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, Jesus rebuked him by saying "Let the dead bury their dead" (Matt. 8:22). Jesus never used the word "family" and he never married or fathered children. To his own mother, he said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:4).
WHAT WERE HIS VIEWS ON EQUALITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE?--Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: "And that servantt(read: slave), which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did accor-
Page 156-2
ding to his will shall be beaten with many stripes" (Luke 12:47). He never denounced servitude, but quite the contrary, incorporated the master-slave relationship into many of his parables. He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, "Ye have the poor with you always" (Mark 14:3-7). No women were chosen as disciples (or apostles-Ed.) or invited to the Last Supper.
WHAT MORAL ADVICE DID JESUS GIVE? --"There be eunuchs (Webster defines a eunuch as 'a castrated man in charge of an Oriental harem or...any man or boy lacking normal function of the testes, as through castration or disease'--Ed.), which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matt. 19:12). Some believers, including church father Origen, took this verse literally and castrated themselves. Even metaphorically, this advice is in poor taste.
If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matt. 5:29-30, in a sexual context). Marrying a divorced woman is adultery (Matt. 5:32). Don't plan for the future (Matt. 6:34), don't save money (Matt. 6:19-20), or become wealthy (Mark 10:21-25). Sell everything you have and give it to the poor (Luke 12:33). Don't work to obtain food (John 6:27). Don't have sexual urges (Matt. 5:28). Make people want to persecute you (Matt. 5:11). Let everyone know you are better than the rest (Matt. 5:13-16). Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors (Luke 19:23-26). If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back (Luke 6:30). If someone hits you, invite them to do it again (Matt. 5:39). If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment (Matt. 5:40). If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles (Matt. 5:41). If someone asks you for anything, give it to them without question (Matt. 5:42).
Is any of this wise? Is this what you would teach your children?
WAS JESUS RELIABLE?--Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming: "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16:28) and "Behold I come quickly" (Rev. 3:11). It's been 2,000 years, and believers are still waiting for his "quick" return.
He mistakenly claimed that the mustard seed is "the least of all seeds" (Matt. 13:32), and that salt could "lose its savour" (Matt. 5:13). Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a "fool" shall be in danger of hell fire (Matt. 5:22), yet he called people "fools" himself (Matt. 23:17). Regarding his own truthfulness, Jesus gave two conflicting opinions: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John 5:31) and "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true" (John 8:14).
WAS JESUS A GOOD EXAMPLE?--He irrationally cursed a fig tree for being fruitless out of season (Matt. 21:18-19 and Mark 11:13-14). He broke the law by stealing corn on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23), and he encouraged his disciples to take a horse without asking permission (Matthew 21). The "humble" Jesus said that he was "greater than the temple" (Matt. 12:6), "greater than Jonah" (Matt. 12:41), and "greater than Solomon" (Matt. 12:42). He appeared to suffer from a dictator's "paranoia" when he said, "He that is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30).
WHY JESUS?--Although other verses can be cited that portray Jesus in a different light, they do not erase the disturbing side of his character. The conflicting passages only prove the NT is contradictory.
The "Golden Rule" was said many times by earlier religious leaders. [Confucius said, "Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you"]. "Turn the other cheek" encourages victims to invite further violence. "Love they neighbor" applied only to fellow believers. (Neither the Jews nor Jesus showed much love to foreign religions). A few of the Beatitudes ("Blessed are the peacemakers") are acceptable, but they are all conditioned on future rewards, not based on respect for human life or values. (As I have said so often, you should do the right because it is the right thing to do, not because you expect rewards or kickbacks someday-Ed.)
On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He introduced nothing new to ethics (except hell). He instituted no social programs. Being "omniscient," he could have shared some useful science or medicine, but he appeared ignorant of such things (as if his character were merely the invention of writers stuck in the first century).
Many scholars doubt the historical existence of Jesus. No first-century writer confirms the Jesus story. The NT is internally contradictory and contains historical errors. The story is filled with miracles and other outrageous claims. Consisting mostly of material borrowed from pagan religions, the Jesus story appears to be cut from the same fabric as all other myths and fables.
WHY WOULD JESUS BE SPECIAL?--It would be more reasonable and productive to emulate real, flesh-and-blood human beings who have contributed to humanity--mothers who have given birth, scientists who have alleviated suffering, social reformers who have fought injustice--than to worship a character of such dubious qualities as Jesus."
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #646 from DA of La Puente, California (Part a)
Dear McKinsey. Got your Biblical Errancy #149, and return some comments. 2 issues in a row devoted to letters? It seems a bit excessive. You had best consider ways to reduce that. One obvious way is stop printing letters that say how great you are doing. No doubt you like to hear from such clearly perceptive writers, but we have no need to hear praise of you. We see your stuff directly and can make up our own minds. (However, the converse is not true. We do need to see the criticism of you because this may be something we have missed.) In effect, letters praising you are just advertisements, and a waste of limited space. So unless the writer is suggesting something, just take pleasure from the letter and file it. Even if a printable suggestion is made, the compliments should be edited out or down.
Editor's Response to Letter #646 (Part a)
Dear DA. I'd be more inclined to take your letter to heart if I felt confident that it didn't reek with ulterior motives. For several reasons I'm inclined to look upon it as an insidious attempt to squelch euphonious comments by your opposition masked under some objectively-disguised sophistry. First, complimentary letters are inserted not so much to elevate my ego or spirits as to raise those of everyone involved in our cause. Cri-tics of the Bible receive so little support, commendation, or exaltation that it is good for everyone to be aware of the fact that our efforts are not in vain. Complimentary letters with respect to everyone aiding our cause have been included. We all feel better when one of our own is recognized for his or her contribution to the betterment of mankind. You, on the other hand, merely seek to short-circuit the process by making it appear as if I am on some kind of ego trip. Is that really your concern? I doubt it. Otherwise you'd be sending comparable letters to your Christian compatriots in the media who never tire of singing praises to the efforts of other biblicists or spouting "Praise the Lord." How many letters have you sent to Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other emissaries of escapism? If you were really tired of hearing somebody or something praised without surcease, you'd be sending them letters incessantly. But you aren't! Why? Because you're in league with their proselytism, that's why. Some of their TV shows reek with so much mutual-adulation and euphonious encomiums that it's all I can do to retain my last repast. But you dislike hearing our efforts complimented, so you wrote your derogatory letter. If you get sick of hearing someone praised, then you must really become nauseated every time you view a Christian propaganda broadcast and hear all those interminable "Praise be to God," Hallelujah Jesus," or "Praise the Lord" accolades that closely resemble chalk scraping a blackboard. If letters in praise of me and those aiding our cause "are just advertisements and a waste of limited space," what do you call all that music, literature, and talk that appears on the Christian media with respect to Jesus and his mutually congratulating propagandists? You must think that's Madison Avenue personified. Ad agencies gone berserk!
Second, you say, "We do need to see the criticism of you because this may be something we have missed." I think a more candid reason is that you want as much negative publicity with respect to this publication as is possible. You aren't so much concerned with truth and balance as discrediting this periodical by any means possible with disingenuous rhetoric concealed under an aura of objectivity . Frankly, I think you're only trying to fake-out our readers.
And third, most of the complimentary letters that are published are accompanied by additional information and don't dwell merely on my ideological assets or those of others. Until recently the overwhelming majority of letters received by us have been printed, so what you see is what we get and reflects the opinions of our subscribers. People can make up their minds with respect to the validity of what I am saying, but they have little idea of how it is being received by others unless nearly every letter is published. How many letters have you written to your Christian compatriots complaining about the obvious absence of critical letters and negative comments in their publications and media presentations? I have no doubt the answer is ZERO. Don't you do all you can to discourage indoctrination, brainwashing and one-sided monologues? Of course not! You don't really care. You just play the part.
Letter #646 Concludes (Part b)
You had best try to edit your own answers. It is, granted, difficult to impossible to respond to an error within the limited space the error takes, but you should still take as a standard that your response should be no longer than the letter. One way to do that is to drop things like: ad homin (sic) attacks "..(sic) borders on incoherent if not puerile." ".. (sic) possess an amazing ability to express youself (sic) in rambling, disjointed, uncommunicative sophistic rhetoric..(sic) non sequiturs, invalid analogies, and straw men are your stock-in-trade." Really now. This is just being nasty. (& wrong. HL was in fact superior to your response.) It does nothing to settle the argument and has been identified as a basic fallacy long ago. & you can edit out reprints of routine letters to others such as GL.
Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #646
My answers are edited or isn't that obvious. If our full repertoire of repartee were unleashed, some answers to letters like yours would consume an entire issue. You don't know how difficult it is to straighten out some people who are light years from reality. To really be precise, correcting some sentences would take an entire issue. Second, ad hominem arguments and "nasty" rhetoric are by no means endemic to my approach as any objective observer must willingly concede. Acerbic replies only come to the fore in response to even more caustic and unjustified rhetoric on the part of my detractors. The primary difference, however, is that my fusillade is considerably more accurate and potent. Third, anytime you think someone's response was "superior" to my analysis, don't just say so and run to the hills for cover; prove it. Assertions aren't evidence and beliefs aren't factual equivalents. I know of nothing that HL said that eclipsed my observations. And finally, as far editing out is concerned, I realize that's probably your forte but it has never been mine. The religious crowd is far more adept and experienced at editing out and censoring than I will ever be. Your suggested screening of GL's letter (#618 in the May 1995 Issue) is unwarranted in view of the fact that his comments and social activism are by no means routine. You are probably really bothered by the fact that he denounced religion in no uncertain terms and spent considerable energy seeing that our Encyclopedia was placed in his local school libraries beside other material on the same topic. GL was as entitled to a response as much as anyone else. You don't have to be an orator gifted in the art of grandiloquent rhetoric and original thought to receive a hearing in BE. After all you're getting a hearing aren't you.
Letter #647 from RVH of Simi Valley, California
Dear Dennis. Thanks for your reply to letter #621. I hope I haven't confused you. What I meant to refer to were resurrections where the resurrectee did it himself--without relation to some outside event, person, or power. To my knowledge, only Jesus has done this--i.e. said, "I'll be back" and done it. Personally I don't care, but my Christian friends say this is why Jesus' resurrection is so important. Can you think of any similar cases? I'm gonna battle these people on their own ground if I can. I wonder what it is that makes Christ's self-resurrecting any more miraculous than the others.
Editor's Response to Letter #647
Dear RVH. Apparently you missed the issue in which I showed that Jesus did not raise himself. He was raised by another, by God, as is clearly proven by Gal. 1:1, Acts 3:15, 4:10, 13:30, 2:32, 5:30, Rom. 10:9, and other verses. In view of the fact that Jesus never raised himself, there is nothing that makes Christ's resurrection any more miraculous than the others. With Jesus, as with other biblical figures, the resurrectee did not resurrect himself. All of the biblical resurrections have this assistance trait in common. So your Christian friends have no reason to say the resurrection of Jesus "is so important."
Letter #648 from TB of Ariton, Alabama
Dear Dennis. A truly outstanding job you're doing with BE.... This note is to question something you said in BE issue #149, in response to letter #611. I agree with the writer that "perfect" necessarily includes immunity to being damaged or soiled. If not, why not? Wouldn't it be silly to suggest that a perfect being could be injured? You told the writer that it is "a repudiation of the very definition of God" to say that he, as a perfect being, could produce something that is imperfect. How's that? Wouldn't perfection include omnipotence, and if so, why couldn't he produce anything he liked, even something imperfect? To say that he could not do so implies a limitation which, even if self-imposed, is not compatible with omnipotence.
Do you agree that omnipotence is a logical impossibility, as demonstrated by the "making of a rock too heavy to lift" problem? Wouldn't omnipotence, if it existed, include omnipresence, omniscience? And wouldn't omnipotence preclude omnibenevolence, since omnipotence must include all evil as well as all good? Keep up the great work.
Editor's Response to Letter #648
Dear TB. Be careful or you'll drown in "omnis." First, I don't see why it would be silly under your definition of an omnipotent being to suggest that he could be injured. If you are saying God can't injure himself, then you are saying he isn't omnipotent. There is something he can't do. He can't injure himself. But you just said he was omnipotent. Second, yes, I said that it would be "a repudiation of the very definition of God" to say that he could produce something that is imperfect." You still haven't shown me how that which is perfect can do that which is imperfect and still be called perfect. People who believe in an omnipotent being just don't realize that they are tying themselves in knots. They think that they need only say God can do anything and that settles everything. How wrong they are! It isn't that simple. Because of how God is defined, he is plagued by two major restrictions. He can't do that which repudiates his own character. He can't lie, sin, or engage in any act that is the very antithesis of his being, because the minute he did, he would no longer be God. One of his key characteristics is perfection. By definition everything he does is perfect and for him to commit an imperfect act would be impossible as it would mean he was no longer God. How could that which is perfect do that which is imperfect and still be called perfect. The answer is simple--it can't. In addition, God can't violate the most basic law of logical thought--the law of non-contradiction. He can't create a being more powerful than himself; he can't create something too heavy for him to lift; he can't create a square circle, a two sided triangle, or an all black white horse; he can't count beyond infinity; he can't abolish himself and then bring himself back into existence or engage in other acts that are beyond the pale. This list can be extended longer than most people realize and arises from the fact that theists have not taken account of the logical implications generated by their own definition of God.
You say, "Wouldn't perfection include omnipotence, and if so, why couldn't he produce anything he liked, even something imperfect?" You also say, "To say that he could not do so implies a limitation which, even if self-imposed, is not compatible with omnipotence." Unfortunately the conclusions you draw from both points are incorrect. Omnipotence does not include the ability to violate the law of non-contradiction. You can't be perfect and imperfect simultaneously. You are either one or the other but you can't be both. The basic flaw in your line of reasoning is that you have extended "omnipotence" to include the ability to do anything whatever, even when it repudiates the very definition of God and entails committing two diametrically opposed acts simultaneously. The problems confronting theists, such as those we have already mentioned, are far more potent than biblicists care to admit. They can't be shrugged off with cute remarks and unaffected demeanors. Religionists have always tried to sluff off these queries as nothing more than childish mind games when, in fact, they are dilemmas of the first magnitude that strike at the very core of any beliefs in an omnipotent being. The very foundation of logic itself, the law of non-contradiction, is brought into a direct clash with the ultimate in absolutist claims and hyperbole. Biblicists erroneously think the word "omnipotence" takes care of everything when, in fact, the opposite is true. It's not a screen deterring all barbs, because of the fundamental limitations associated with omnipotence itself.
Your final paragraph seems to agree with the point I'm making, so I see no reason to comment.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #649 from GN of Scottsdale, Arizona
Dear Dennis. I was going through all my notes recently and came across a few things that I thought you might be interested in. Perhaps you know all of this, but just in case you missed something I want to share some of the things I found. Someday you might want to enlarge your encyclopedia and would need more information. I doubt that a book could be big enough to hold all the inconsistencies, false prophecies, lies, distortions, mistakes, and contradictions found in the "book."
First Kings 3:12 says that God gave Solomon a wise and discerning heart so that there has been "NO ONE like you before you nor shall one like you arise after you." No one obviously includes Jesus himself.
Gen. 3:14 says, "Cursed are you (the serpent) more than all cattle." When were the cattle cursed? I thought the creation of animals was "very good." The bible says nothing about when and why cattle were cursed. Perhaps there were talking cows that got themselves in trouble before the serpent.
Ex. 7:22 How did the Egyptian priests turn the water into blood when it was already blood.
Lev. 20:10 Adultery is punishable by death. Why were David and Bathsheba spared?
Lev. 20:27 Mediums and spiritists were to be put to death. Was not Jesus communicating with the dead when Moses and Elijah appeared at the transfiguration, and wasn't Paul talking to the dead when he spoke to Jesus?
Num. 13:33 ...."the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim." The Nephilim should have been destroyed during the flood of Noah's day. How did they show up later?
Editor's Response to Letter #649
If I am not mistaken, GN, we discussed your points with reference to 1 Kings 3:12, Ex. 7:22, and Lev. 20:10 a long time ago. I know they're in my notes. As far as the Nephilim are concerned your point is well taken. They were around in Num. 13:33 which was after the Flood, and that conflicts with Gen. 6:4 which says there were Nephilim before the Flood and Gen. 7:21 which says all living creatures except Noah and his kin died in the Flood. Unless Nephilim were on the ark, biblicists have a problem.
Letter #650 from JK of Lynn, Indiana
Sir.... Thank you for having the gumption to expose all the fallacious writings of that con artists' special, the great lie book, the so-called Bible. I like the Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy very much. Very informative and to the point. But in my estimation there is one flaw. The book is too big. It should be the size that could be carried in the pocket of your coat or jacket. Then if you happened to meet one of those ignorant, superstitious Jesus freaks, you could then have the means to set him straight then and there. Using the same tactics, like quoting from your own source of information, and using their own material to show them their erroneous beliefs.
And now a personal request. I would like to copy BE, maybe a quote or a paragraph in some of my writings, maybe even a half page or so. Of course, the source would be acknowledged.
Editor's Response to Letter #650
Dear JK. Creating a small pocket-size edition of the Encyclopedia is a good idea but, instead, I'd prefer to transform my 5 large notebooks into a portable, small, indexed, data base for quick reference during on-the-spot encounters. But, as always, time and money are the limiting factors. As far as quoting our literature is concerned, that is always permissible as long as people are told the source. In fact, we would encourage you to quote our material at every opportunity.
Letter #651 from DS of Tiffin, Ohio
Dear Dennis. I have stumbled on an idea which may make even an ardent inerrantist take pause. Granted this is probably not a new idea, but one I just thought of, so it's new to me. If the "problems" in the text of the Bible are either translational or "copy errors," then the position of inerrancy is instantly destroyed. As you have stated many times, "it (the Bible) is purported to be the direct and inspired word of God. And God is a perfect, all knowing, and powerful entity." So it follows that if there is even one "copyist error" God was not in charge. If God was not correcting the poor schmuck who was making a particular copy, it proves that it is not God's word. So far, in reading your publication, every apologist has used the mistranslation or copy error argument at least once. They have unwittingly admitted that there is a mistake. The question is begged, "how can an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being, allow his words to be screwed up? Doesn't it care that this will misrepresent it and wouldn't it have done everything to correct this problem? Even the apologists are admitting that there are these types of errors. Are they admitting that God didn't take charge? If God can cover the world with water, bring it all about in 6 days and do all sorts of great stuff, surely he could have controlled the thoughts of those working on his word. But apparently he did not. Once any error is substantiated it eliminates the book from being the word of a perfect being, regardless of how poor the human aspect would have been. God is supposed to control everything. If he doesn't, prayer would be more pointless than it already is. The sequence of thought would be: 1) God is perfect 2) God controls his created world 3) man is part of that world 4) God controls man 5) under God's control his word would be perfect 6) mistakes are noted 7) the Bible is not God's word. Why even discuss chapter and verse if the apologists are ready to confirm such mistakes. As you have stated, a perfect being could not make an imperfect anything. Just a thought.... As always, keep up the great work.
Letter #652 from LWC of Lufkin, Texas
Dear Dennis. This letter is intended for FVH of Flagstaff, Arizona. In BE #154 he expressed a need for information useful in confronting letter-to-the-editor writing Bible thumpers. While I am sure he will discover many valuable bible bashing gems in BE, I would like to volunteer some more. You see, FVH, at one time I was in the same predicament as you now are. I began to research the problem, and over the years I have succeeded in accumulating much ammunition, some of it downright deadly, to be used in effectively confronting bible fundamentalists. It is my earnest desire to share this information with other freethinkers. So if you will write me (102 Spyglass Drive, Lufkin, Texas 75901 or call me at 409-637-1026 I will be happy to provide this information to you at no cost.
Editor's Response to Letter #652
Dear LWC. We included your letter because you appear to be eager to help those opposing religious propaganda in the print media. But readers should know that we have not seen any of what you have to offer and are in no position to provide an endorsement.
EDITOR'S NOTE: We are still looking for people willing to play our cable access TV tapes in their vicinity and would like to hear about the experiences of those who have already had some aired. Please keep in mind that our programs are created for, and directed to, believers in an inerrant Bible, not freethinkers. Preaching to the choir or providing confirmation and amusement to our supporters is of secondary importance. Tickling funny bones may be the outcome, but that's not the in-tent. Our objective is to inform, not perform.