Omnipotent Lite

Honestly, I don’t think I ever worshiped an all-powerful god. Oh sure, I had faith and I believed, but fact of the matter was, there were times God didn’t protect us, no matter how faithfully we adhered to his word. Bad things happen to good people. Needless suffering – children being raped, abused, enslaved, or else starving to death – happens on such a grand scale it’s no wonder we do our best to block it out and not think about it. Of course, I can’t seem to do that.

The Problem of Pain has always, always, always been the seed of my doubt. I see that now. I wanted a god who was loving and awesome (in the old school sense) and kept his word. And hey, since my dad walked out on us before my earliest memories, I liked the idea of having a daddy who was always there looking out for me. But I didn’t think he was all-powerful.

I "knew" any number of demonic forces, generational curses, soul ties, unconfessed sins, etc (ad nauseum) could “shorten God’s arm” as my Giggy said, and could be a hindrance to Him, or could stop His blessing from being received. It’s funny, I think I had an answer to Euthyphro’s dilemma when I was six. God stopped as much evil as he could, and he was still more powerful than anyone or anything else, just not 100% powerful. In the black-and-white world of my grandmother's teachings, I had to make my god a little gray to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

Looking back, I don’t think I ever really did believe God was ALL powerful. Pretty powerful, sure. Creator of the universe? Absolutely. Infinite deity? You betcha. Capable of overcoming the logical paradoxes created by an omnibenevolent omnipresent omniscient and omnipotent god existing alongside observable reality? Nope.

My god was never that cool.

Read more!

Is the Bible Reliable?

Today's counter-apologetic is brought to you by Matt Slick of CARM and by the letter Q.

One of the most important questions asked by non-Christians as they look into Christianity is whether or not the Bible is trustworthy. Can the Bible be trusted? If it has been corrupted, then we cannot trust what is attributed to Jesus' words and deeds. So, is the Bible reliable or not?

Corrupted is an interesting word choice. It’s funny, because Matt Slick here appears to be giving us only two options – the Bible is accurate, “uncorrupted” and trustworthy, or it is none of those things. He’s painting an either/or scenario. Either the Bible is the word of god or it isn’t – and if it isn’t, then it’s also apparently not trustworthy or reliable. Please keep this black-and-white either/or premise in mind as we continue. It will come into play later.

Yes, the Bible is reliable. The original writings of the Bible have been lost. But before they were lost, they were copied. These copies were incredibly accurate, very meticulous, and very precise. The people who copied them were extremely dedicated to God and their copying tasks. They took great care when copying the original manuscripts.

Tee-hee! I love the attempt at conflating two completely different things. The copying of the Bible may very well have been accurate or reliable, however (and this is important, kiddies) that does not mean the *content* of the Bible is reliable or accurate, just reliably and accurately copied from an original source *which we are supposed to trust without question.* See, the underlying implication is that because the Bible has been accurately copied (or at least, the New Testament hereafter referred to as NT), that means they are “right” with the suggestion there was some original “right” version of the Bible at one time, and that therefore accuracy *with that original* is the same as accuracy with *reality*.

This copying method is so exact, and so precise, that the New Testament alone is considered to be 99.5% textually pure. This means that of the 6000 Greek copies (the New Testament was written in Greek), and the additional 21,000 copies in other languages, there is only one half of 1% variation. Of this very slight number, the great majority of the variants are easily corrected by comparing them to other copies that don't have the "typos" or by simply reading the context. You should know that copying mistakes occur in such ways as word repetition, spelling, or a single word omission due to the copyist missing something when moving his eyes from one line to another. The variants are very minor.

Huh, so you mean the NT *has* been corrupted? I mean, .5% of it is NOT reliable or accurate! Going by Matt's opening black-and-white premise, I guess this means the whole book should be thrown out. I mean, it was either reliable and accurate and perfect, or it wasn't, right? (Apparently, the best God can do when inspiring a book to be written and copied, is to get 99.5% accuracy. Clearly 100% is too much to expect of the creator of *this* universe.)

Nothing affects doctrinal truth and the words and deeds of Christ are superbly reliably transmitted to us.

Handling snakes and drinking poison. These are doctrines (granted, not ones Matt himself follows) based *entirely* on Biblical forgery, which is knowingly copied by Bible translators today. Oh yes, the NIV includes the forgery and a little footnote at the bottom of the page saying "This is not from the original." Ah yes, the wonderfully accurate and reliable Word of God with no doctrinal truths affected by copying and scribe errors, right Matt? (Here's more on the doctrine and Christians who have died following this forged verse of Scripture.)

And hey, what’s so superbly reliably wonderful about non-eyewitnesses who never even met Jesus-the-man writing their thoughts down about him 40 years after his supposed execution? Matt, be less Slick and more honest. What you really mean here is “The words and deeds of Jesus, according to the original unknown Gospel authors, have been very well preserved and copied over time.” And hey, even if they were eyewitnesses (which they weren’t according to serious Biblical scholars and historians) that would not make their testimonies factually correct.

As a preteen, I had the job of typing up my grandmother’s diaries for posterity. Her letters are big narcissistic loops and her handwriting is worse than most doctors', but, with great accuracy, I was able to very often decipher the original meaning of a page. I’d then take my translation and type it up, thus accurately and reliably copying the words she had written. Does that make my grandmother’s diaries reliable in the way atheists *really* mean when we ask if the Bible is reliable? (Hint: No. It just means I was a damn good office assistant.) My grandmother was mentally ill, among other things, and her perception of events was not just colored or filtered through her beliefs, but sifted through them like flour. She wrote down events and details in the way she perceived to be true, but hey, I was alive during most of these events. I can compare her recollection with my own, or with newspapers and court records or the other people involved. I can see how well her writing matches up with reality, an option we don’t have as readily available when it comes to the anonymous Gospel authors (though we can and should still try.)

The science of studying ancient literature and its accuracy of transmission to is called historicity. The Bible is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the originals to the present copies, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of manuscripts and accuracy. If the Bible were to be discredited as being unreliable, then it would be necessary to discard the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible.

Beautiful! Here the double-meanings of "reliable" come clearly into focus. I read Plato’s “Republic” in college, because it was assigned and I have a thing for A’s. There were parts I liked and parts I hated and at one point, I even chucked the book across the restaurant where I was studying because I was so furious. Finding out that the Republic was not copied with perfect accuracy over the centuries changes my feelings for that book not one jot or tittle, as Jesus would say (according to anonymous Gospel authors.) Hell, I don’t even care if it turns out Plato never existed and “his” ideas were really someone else’s. Because Plato’s not my god, and he never was. Homers writings are beautiful and epic, in the original sense of the word. But we don’t worship the gods in his stories anymore, so no one minds quite so much if the stories have shifted ever so slightly over time.

No one takes the writings of Homer, Plato and Aristotle as “gospel truth” and that’s the kicker. Little children aren't asked to take the Iliad into their hearts and turn their sins over to Zeus for forgiveness. Whether or not they are reliable, accurate copies and translations of the originals has *nothing* to do with whether the originals were factual or fictional. You can copy a lie all die long and no matter how accurately you copy the lie, that won’t make the lie truth.

Also, Matt Slick has shifted from claims that the New Testament was incredibly accurate to now claiming the entire Bible is more accurately copied than other ancient texts, but the OT doesn’t have the same “accuracy rating” as the NT and Matt Slick knows that. He’s just a deceptive little booger.

The Bible was written by those who were inspired by God, so it is accurate and true, and represents historical occurrences.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Your entire argument rests on an unsupported CLAIM that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God?! What a crock of rhetorical shit! Honestly Matt, I expected better of you (though I don’t know why I did – I have no good reason to.)

Also, please Matt, if the Bible is so historically accurate, why wasn’t there really a mass exodus of Israeli slaves from Egypt? Why is there no record of Jesus’ trial or execution amongst Roman court documents of the time? Why are their no contemporary extra-Biblical accounts of any of Jesus’ miracles or actions? Why didn’t anybody BUT the Gospel writers jot down when zombies started rising out of their graves and wondering the streets of Jerusalem? Oh yes, very historically accurate, uh huh. Pull the other one – it’s ticklish.

When we look at the New Testament we realize that it was written by those who either knew Jesus personally, or were under the direction of those who did. They wrote what they saw. They wrote about the resurrection of Christ. They recorded His miracles and His sayings.

Matt is either intentionally ignorant or consciously lying here. He certainly has access to the same information on Biblical authorship that I do (you’d think more so, as the head of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry) and I know this is flat out BULLSHIT and I’m calling him out on it.

From the Iron Chariots Wiki titled “Overview of Early Christianity”

On inspection, the four gospels that provide the core understanding of Jesus' life not only appear to have not been written by the apostles that are attributed to them, but they were misleadingly not written by any first-hand eyewitnesses of Jesus at all. They were all written many years after the purported life of Jesus by people who had never met him. In the case of John, as late as the early 2nd Century CE. The rest of the new testament is made up of parables by people like Paul of Tarsus and Luke the Evangelist, who, by their own admission, never met Jesus during his lifetime and never witnessed the events and miracles claimed in the gospels. As such, even within the context of the bible itself, there is no first-hand account of Jesus' existence.

From "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" by Marshall J. Gauvin (circa 1922)

What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels of the New Testament--Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.

So… the Gospel writers really didn’t personally know Jesus (in a flesh-and-blood person way of knowing, not in the “Jesus is in my heart” way modern Christians mean). They weren’t writing down their own life events. They weren’t writing down events they witnessed or quoting a guy they palled around with. They were copying Q (except for John.) Oh yeah, and since Q (theoretical believed original document the synoptic gospels are all drawn/copied from) isn’t around today to compare with the Gospels, all those quotes about supreme accuracy to the original kind of ring hollow. Matt Slick really should know this stuff. Do you suppose he does, and he pretends not to, or do you think he’d really rather not know?

It comes down to whether or not you believe what it says about Christ. Do you?

Well, no. Why should I? Men, non-inspired men, wrote the Bible. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Sure, Matt made a claim that the Bible was inspired by God but the evidence he had for it (none) wasn’t overwhelmingly impressive. Neither Matt nor I know who wrote the Gospels, but anyone with the ability to Google can discover for themselves that it was NOT four guys named Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, whoever it was.

Was the New Testament hand copied well from the earlies manuscripts we do have (though not the originals of either the gospels themselves nor Q)? Sure. Does that mean the Bible is reliable? Fuck no! What a silly argument :D

Read more!

Courtship Promises pt. 1

Well, today I'm going to talk about something my mom only jokingly threatened me with, but that many Christian teenagers are forced into: Courtship. I'll be using writings by Bill Gothard. Before anyone gets upset that this isn't *their* version of Christianity & therefore I'm unfairly judging all Christians, here is my brand spanking new Angie the Anti-Theist General Christian Disclaimer.

There is no universal consensus among Christians on the life and teachings of Jesus, the primary message of the Gospel, the role of Old Testament laws in today's society, or the proper way to live a "Christian life." Therefore, I will address the multitudes of differing beliefs within Christianity. If you feel that your particular ideology, sect, denomination, or version of Christianity has been unfairly excluded, please let me know and I'll be sure to cover why I don't share your beliefs either.

Are we good now?

What is Courtship?
Courtship is experiencing the blessing of God by loving the Lord Jesus Christ and honoring both sets of parents. The purpose of courtship is to determine a couple’s readiness for marriage and to discern the will of God for a covenant marriage that will benefit the world.

While the actual manifestation of a courtship relationship will vary because no two couples are alike, one of the primary motivations behind courtship (as opposed to dating) is the protection of the emotions of those involved until the time when it is clearly God’s will to proceed into marriage.

Okay, I've got a problem from the opening clause, "Courtship is experiencing." That is an active verb. It's an action - "experiencing." But that's really a broad verb, when you think about it. I mean, we have sensory experiences and means of experiencing the world around us. We don't seem to have any measurable way of "experiencing" blessing, however. What exactly does "experiencing the blessing of God" mean in practical, measurable terms? My brother the physicist (oh yay! the only other atheist) has this quote as his email tagline -

"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
- Lord Kelvin

You can see why he's the other atheist, can't you? Okay, so courtship is something that frankly hasn't really been defined. We know it's about "honoring both sets of parents" though...

I have to ask, how are emotions protected by going through your parents? If one person doesn't want to move forward, there's still gonna be rejection. Besides, minimizing the risk of dating also minimizes some of the rewards. I learned a LOT about myself over the years, and some of that I learned from men and women I dated. I'm still in friendly contact with ex-boyfriends from as far back as seventh grade. (Hi, Micah!) Even though there's pain and loss in dating, I don't think that's a reason to completely forgo the exercise. Alright, let's get into the meat of this.

Foundational Principles of Courtship

I'm intrigued already. Foundational principles of "experiencing God's blessing"? I can hardly wait.

1. Ensure the blessing of God

The greatest asset of any person or marriage is God’s blessing. “The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it” (Proverbs 10:22).

Since the Bible isn't nearly as pro-marriage as most contemporary Christians (I was gonna type modern, but then realized that might not be the best description for some of these people), I'm going to look up that verse in context. This is a passage about wisdom, like many of the proverbs are. It is not about marriage, marital love, male-female love, or procreation or children. There are early verses in the passage comparing a wise and foolish son, bringing joy and shame to parents, but they're a good ten verses before the one Bill Gothard quoted. Here's a little context for you,

20The tongue of the just is as choice silver: the heart of the wicked is little worth.
21The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom.
22The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it.
23It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom.
24The fear of the wicked, it shall come upon him: but the desire of the righteous shall be granted.

That's just not about marriage. Nice try, Bill. But let's see how Bill thinks a couple can "ensure" the Lord's blessing for their marriage.

No couple will have a happy or prosperous marriage without the blessing of the Lord. If God does not bless them, the devourer will damage and destroy their present and future joy and potential.

Wow, I guess we can blame "the devourer" for all those failed Christian marriages. Or maybe we're supposed to blame the Lord for not blessing their marriages, and allowing the devourer to wreak so much havoc? Oh wait, silly me. This is Christianity! People are to blame for everything bad, and God gets credit for everything good. It's simple, really. Okay, so no getting married until you have God's blessing. Of course, that hasn't been defined yet and we're still not sure how to "ensure" you get it.

A blessed marriage is described in the following passage: “Blessed is every one that feareth the LORD; that walketh in his ways. For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee. Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table” (Psalm 128).

I don't want to be a vine - fruitful or otherwise! I don't want to live in another man's house. I want to live in my house. And I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't see my son as an olive plant or any other possession.

It sounds like a man gets blessed by fearing the Lord and walking in his ways. Again, dating isn't mentioned. There is no verse saying, "Thou shalt not watch a movie with a member of the opposite sex without appropriate Christian chaperones" but that's the message I got as a Christian teen. From youth group to Brio to that stupid hated "Worth Waiting For" necklace of my sister's, the idea that dating was somehow wrong was clearly communicated. Somehow it's "unChristian" or "worldly" to date, but really, this isn't territory that's covered in the Bible.

In the Old Testament, if you liked a girl you just bought her from her dad, or raped her first and then bought her. In the New Testament, well, Jesus never married and neither did Paul, Paul was pretty adamantly against marriage. I'll get into that more later, but for now let me just say, the Bible isn't particularly pro-marriage. The gross assumption on the part of many conservative Christians that marriage is somehow "sacred" or "holy" in God's eyes simply isn't supported by the text (which is why good old Bill here will use verses completley out of context.)

Now let's address this assertion that "No couple will have a happy or prosperous marriage" unless they did it Bill Gothard's way. Divorce statistics for Christians and non-Christians in the US are fairly stable. Born-again Christians and Baptists get divorced at the highest rate (according to an Associated Press survey) and atheists at the lowest rate. Conservative states like Oklahoma and Alabama have a 50% higher incidence of divorce than liberal states like Maine and Washington. Apparently, the Bill Gothard style of marriage fails more often. Now, if you think that at least some of these Christian marriages that succeed are doing so because of the Lord's blessing, how do you account for the successful non-Christian marriages? Surely Bill doesn't think the Lord has bestowed his blessing on heathens. Clearly, there are happy (or at least in tact) marriages among non-Christians. The "destroyer" has not had his merry way with them. How does Bill account for this, I wonder?

We'll just have to wait until tomorrow to find out. Part 2 coming soon, Anteaters. I may as well let you in on my decreased posting. I've been having really awful and frequent periods, and they're taking a toll on me. I've had four since I moved to Denver two months ago. I've basically been half-zombie, but I talked with a midwife friend who told me what I can do and take to feel better, so I hope to be more alert and active soon. Till then, be well and have great and godless days.

Read more!

Al-Anon pt 3: Fertile Ground

And when much people were gathered together, and were come to him out of every city, he spake by a parable: a sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it. And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it. And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold.
- Luke 8:4-7

Al-Anon's self defeatist message found fertile ground with me. There were so many of this cult's ideas I'd already absorbed from mainstream and fundamentalist Christianity.

Inherently Defective
Al-Anon taught me, like Christianity, that I am inherently flawed and defective, and only my Higher Power can fix this. No amount of effort, learning, therapy, wisdom, or charity I do can make up for the flaws I was born with - a sinful nature or codependency. However, confessing my powerlessness, my sinfulness is only the first step. In the case of both religions, this creates the need for the group or church to fill. I must attend meetings (or services) at least once a week if I expect God to fix me. After all, I must do my own part of my salvation too, even though my part will never be sufficient. I am fallen and I am powerless. It's up to God (as I understand him) to come save me now.

Learned Helplessness
"All have fallen short of the glory of God" and "We admitted we were powerless." Both of these messages, from Christianity and Al-Anon, take away our impetus to create positive change in our own lives. In Al-Anon I was told repeatedly to "Let go and let God" and to just leave other people to their own devices and character defects. I needed to keep "my side of the street clean" and not worry about that mote in my brother's eye (or bottle in my husband's hand.) At a time when I needed help and empowerment the most, I had my legs kicked out from under me by a bunch of bitter people who probably would have been far happier if they'd just left their alcoholic spouses and bypassed the Steps completely.

Acceptable Abuse

They had stayed, so I should stay. I "shouldn't make any major decisions for the first six months" - really the first year, but I had it wrong at the time. I found out, after telling my sponsor I'd finally broken things off with my husband who belittled, raped, and abused me, that I was really supposed to stick in there another six months before making that choice, since I hadn't yet completed the steps or attained Serenity. I remember feeling profound relief that no one had told me that before hand, because i didn't think I could take another six months of torture, but I was glad I didn't have to knowingly choose to go against one of Al-Anon's principles in order to escape it.

As a Christian child, I knew it was right and godly of my parents to abuse me physically and emotionally. After all, they were following the Bible and Focus on the Family, so they must be right. It simply wasn't safe enough to question authority for me to even consider it. My brother tried that, and he'd been kicked out of the house at 12. But the idea that I should take a certain amount of abuse as my lot in life, and what's more that I'd somehow earned the abuse through my own actions, was an idea I learned early and it took decades to break. My family treated me horribly, and I was fighting an uphill battle to become a person and not just a cult clone. I married badly.

But Al-Anon would have me believe that my fledgling, ill-conceived and frankly never willingly consummated marriage (spousal rape doesn't count) held the weight of my entire integrity, my word, my vow. They made it more serious than it was. I mean yes, I wanted to have a family with him. I married him. But I quickly learned that he was an absolutely horrible human being. He got so drunk one night, he peed out the living room window screen because he thought it was the bathroom toilet. And that wasn't the first time he'd made an error of that kind. (There was also, for instance, his ex-roommate's vacuum cleaner.)

Al-Anon told me I needed to take the focus off of him and his actions, and instead I needed to look for my part in his drinking. Bear in mind, we'd been married all of 10 weeks when I separated from him, taking my son and moving into my mother's. That's when I started going to Al-Anon. I wasn't even with him for three months before leaving, but because I thought Al-Anon told me to wait six months (really a year), I spent twice as long separated from him and trying to work things out as I did living with him as man and wife.

God Micro-Manages

I had been taught to believe in the power of prayer before I'd been taught to read. I believed that I had both free will and a sinful nature, and that the god who gave me free will would intervene in my life and others. Even though God had some overarching multi-millenial Divine Plan, he would fiddle around with the daily minutiae like lost keys, insufficient funds, or bad traffic, if I asked him to.

Bill Wilson's Higher Power is a meddling god. Free will is talked about much less often in 12 Step programs than traditional Sunday morning churches (sorry Adventists.) "Self will" is considered a sin in Al-Anon, the way that the "Adam nature" or "flesh" was sinful in my childhood brand of learned helplessness.

Perpetual Confession
In Christianity I was taught that when I "sinned", the real problem wasn't the people I may have hurt. No, no. The great offense of course was that I'd sinned against God. He was the one who I had hurt the most. Remember, he died for my sins, so the least I could do is make his death meaningless by never sinning again. Since that was bound to be impossible (as Christianity generally is), my only alternative was confession for each and every offense.

At deliverance camp the pastor had us write down a detailed list of all our sins, past and present, great and small. In Al-Anon this would be known as a "fearless and searching moral inventory" or the 4th Step. Christianity had already taught me that I have been judged, and found wanting in the balance. Al-Anon just continued the lesson.

Christianity was fundamentally destructive to my self-esteem as a child, teenager, and young woman. Original sin is a terrible weight to assign every newborn on the planet, and I don't see how I worshiped a god for so long who I believed did exactly that.

Marriage is Sacred (Except When it's Not)

My mother was divorced. My father was not a good husband so, well and good. He was feckless and unfaithful and on one occasion - and one only - he struck her. I could understand and at least some other Christians could as well. My mother had to write a letter to the Christian school we attended, justifying her divorce, in order to get a job teaching computer classes to the high school students. But they had given her the position, and treated her well once she was hired.

My grandmother had been divorced twice. She absolutely should have left her second husband, a darker version of my father's same sins, much sooner than she did. But my grandfather, her first husband, was a good man. She left him because their daughter died at 10 weeks old of a congenital heart defect, and she couldn't be in that house a day longer. Marriage is sacred, unless you've got a good excuse.

In Al-Anon it was the same. The pressure to stay was subtle but constant. The greatest success story couple at my home meeting had been married for 50 years - 27 of them abusive, 23 in 12 step groups. These were the role models of everyone in the room, and so all advice I got was tinged with this poison of the mind - that if you just followed the steps, even the worst marriage could become enviable. Yet if an old-timer, automatically respected for their longevity in the cult, had been divorced three times or more, it was none of my concern and I needed to focus on my self, and work a selfish program, and not try to control people and situations in my life. (Because after all, doing that makes your life unmanageable.)

Some Feelings are Wrong

As a child, I was taught it was a sin to fear, since fear meant not trusting God. Al-Anon told me the same thing. FEAR was nothing more than "false evidence appearing real" and I really needed to just focus on working my Steps and turning my will over to my Higher Power. There was no sense in recognizing fear as a useful warning emotion, and investigating why I had the fears I did (including fears of my husband's possible behavior.)

I was also told "in the rooms" that resentment was always, always, without exception or fail WRONG. The "defilements" of my demon-haunted childhood were replaced with the "resentments" of my 20s. These were the things (almost without fail, just as in Christianity, done by others or merely by environment) holding me back from my "spiritual awakening" and serenity. Resentments were so bad and so inherently self-destructive that I should not only get rid of all current ones, but should do everything in my (powerless) power to prevent them. I remember the day I first heard this sentence and thought it was brilliant.

"Expectations are premeditated resentments."

If I didn't place expectations on people, like the alcoholic, then I wouldn't be so disappointed. Al-Anon taught me, like Christianity, to lower my standards for how well I should be treated. After all, I was a sinner. I was sick - just as sick as the alcoholic, even though my "disease" of codependency had no physical effects at all.

It Will Never Get Better

Even though I was saved by the grace of Jesus (and certainly not by works, so that no man may boast!) I would still always struggle with sin. Being a Christian doesn't make you perfect, just forgiven, and so I would constantly fail at perfection. Al-Anon told me that I had a spiritual disease of codependency, that I was sick and that I would always be sick, and that the best I could hope for was to let go and let god, and hope he did a better job of running my life than I did. After all, my "best thinking got me here" so it was obvious I was not an empowered person capable of making good decisions for myself.

Al-Anon is not a self-help group. It is a self-annihilation group. And it needs to be stopped.

More soon. This post took a lot out of me. Writing about my ex-husband is always extremely difficult. I have a whole mixture of emotions like betrayal, and fear, and humiliation (what the fuck was I thinking marrying that creep?) But I know writing will make me feel better, and I'm at least more emotionally capable of approaching those dark and scary stories now than I was a few months ago. Hopefully the writing flow continues and improves. Much love to all my Anteaters!

* Throughout the 12 Step posts I'll use certain slogans and phrases that were spoken a lot "in the rooms" (like "in the rooms" which refers to 12 Step meetings collectively.) Sometimes I'll remember to put air quotes around them, but sometimes I won't. Cults use buzzwords and slogans as thought-stopping devices, and it's only by recognizing them as such that we can strip them of power over us. So I will use the cult-speak of those days, in the hopes that current and former 12 Steppers who find these posts will be able to recognize in their own meetings and literature the things I'm saying.

Read more!

June 28, 1998

I swayed to the music, my hands raised skyward, singing and crying out to God, with tears streaming down my face. Hallelujah, hallelujah. Oh, I needed to turn back to him. My chest ached and I felt the weight of my betrayal.

I was doing things a good Christian girl shouldn't. I was skipping school, smoking pot and cigarettes, and worst of all, flirting with witchcraft. But not right here in this moment, in a wood frame room with hundreds of other convicted and crying teens at a Vineyard Christian Fellowship teen Bible camp in Georgia. Here, it was just me and Jesus - a time to get right with God.

At the far end of the open room, the band played and sang out prayers into the warm June night, as fireflies lit up past the four corners or the open-walled building frame. I could feel the Holy Spirit moving through the crowd, and I was overcome with emotion. Outside, rain began to pour.

"Oh, please Jesus, forgive me," I begged. "You are holy, holy, holy," I said aloud. It didn't seem strange at all to speak out loud to God; everyone around me was doing the same.

I focused on all the ways I wasn't pleasing God. My mind ran over a litany of my sins and transgressions, and I felt polluted by my sinful nature. I considered my recent interest in the occult. I believed witchcraft was real, even if most people who dabbled in it were total amateurs. That didn't mean Satan couldn't use the occasion, that open door, to infest them with demons. Yet, I sometimes read my horoscope, which I knew was wrong.

I looked down at my left hand. On my middle finger I wore a wrong that I thought God might not like. It was a silver band with a raised moon and stars, and a clear blue lacquer slapped over the top. It came from Claire's and probably sold for about $8. I can't remember if I bought it or stole it. I did quite a bit of that at 15.

I confessed my treachery to Jesus, sobbing anew. I found myself face down on the pine floor, prostrate before my God and my youth group. Compelled, I rose up and walked to one side of the open air room, toward the benches that lined the edges between the thick wood beams keeping up the roof. Leaning out into the wind and the rain, I chucked the ring with all my might, and as it arced into the air, a stroke of lightning lit the sky. He forgave me.

Over the course of that opening night worship service, kicking off a week's long Christian summer camp program, I tried desperately to get back to the comfortable feeling of closeness with Jesus I'd once known. Kids from my youth group, and from a group in Greensboro, North Carolina laid hands on me and prayed for me. Prayed that God would be the father I'd never known, prayed that I would follow His will, prayed that he would shower me with His love and His grace.

I spent three solid hours crying on the hard wood floor that night.

I think this is the kind of experience most Christians don't realize I've had, when I say I don't believe in their god. I did believe. Every element of a "relationship" you believe you have with Jesus, I thought I had. And it's not because I really was overcome with some holy ghost. I just believed it. I believed in Jesus and in repentance and in conviction and in the Rules. I believed in the holy ghost and that God tried to talk to me through both music and the weather. I believed the things I needed to believe to create an emotional experience like the one I had "with Jesus" that summer night in Georgia. Without those beliefs though, there's really no chance of a holy spirit "moving" through any crowd. You never see Christians "slain in the spirit" at the checkout, or else overcome by the Holy Spirit in their cubicle. No. Experiences like this are almost always confined to highly stressful or highly religious situations. Because the ghost isn't real, but the memory of it is.

Read more!

Counter Apologetics

Hey Anteaters! So I've been thinking about it and I really should have a page listing all the counter-apologetics I've done, with links and titles and other helpful things. So here's a quick link location for anyone wanting to share my analyses with others :)

Messin' with Mormons
This is a series of live-chats with LDS missionaries, complete with snarky italicized commentary from me.

Chat 1 How do you know that's really revelation and not just thoughts in your head?
Chat 2 How do you know your god is the right one?
Chat 3 Why can't girls be prophets?
Chat 4 What do you mean by "restored church?"
Chat 5 Why did God make the devil?
Chat 6 What happened to the big miracles?
Chat 7 Marriage and family life in the LDS Church
Chat 8 Can you really *choose* what you believe?
Chat 9 I know it's true because god told me in my head.
Chat 10 All the good stuff is God's doing.

Every Student (EveryStudent.com)

Why Pick the God of the Bible? Cause wouldn't it be better if it was true?
WPGB part 2 He was human for you and died for you. Why are you so mean you won't believe in him?
WPGB part 3 - Cause he's the best god ever, you know.

Is There a God? - Complexity of life proves a complex creator (or something like that)
ITAG part 2 - First cause argument
ITAG part 3 - Jesus claimed to be god, so he must be (lunatic, liar, lord)

Why is There Evil? - We asked for it.

Why is There Evil? part 2 - You think that's hard? Try being crucified, you ungrateful heathens.

Is Jesus God? - Lots of people believe it, so it must be true.

IJG part 2 - Lunatic, liar, lord, or legend

IJG part 3 - Jesus was sinless and did miracles.

IJG part 4 - The tomb was empty. How are you gonna explain that, huh?

All About God
God is Love? Only if we drastically change definitions.

Demon Busters
Demon Busters part 1 The demons are making you sick.
Demon Busters part 2 The demons are controlling your mind.

Answers in Genesis
Morons on a Moral Rampage - Believe in god or your kids will kill you!
Ham-Boned Arguments - Me vs. Ken Ham on the separation of church and state

Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM)

Slick Apologetic - Why don't Christians follow Old Testament stoning laws?

Slick Apologetic 2 - It's your fault your going to hell for denying God's existence.

Christian Women Today
If God is in Control... - He's just building character in all those starving and sexually abused kids around the globe.
Thin Within - Someone refers me to a "spiritual" fat camp after I fill out a survey on eating disorders
Thin Without - Email exchange with my computer-appointed Christian mentor

United Church of God
The Process of Conversion Are you a "true Christian" and how can you tell?
Creation or Evolution: Does it Really Matter?

The Story
The Story is a Lie - My response to an evangelical creationist Flash summary of the Bible
The Story Continues Email exchange between me and one of the Story authors

Learn the Bible (LearntheBible.org)

Woman's Role in the Home - Honor the Lord by getting knocked up as often as possible

WRH part 2 - Don't fight it. You're gonna be his bitch.

WRH part 3 - Brainwashing your children is the Lord's will.

WRH part 4 - Spread the meme to other women.

Catholic Education

This series is a response to the ebook "Homosexuality: The Untold Story"

Homophobia: The Untold Story - Gay people want to take away Christian rights.

HTUS part 2 - Gay activists want to recruit your children.

HTUS part 3 - You're gay because you throw like a girl.

HTUS part 4 - You're gay because you're a narcissist.

HTUS part 5 - You'll get butt cancer if you're gay.

HTUS part 6 - You can be straight if you try hard enough.

HTUS part 7 - You're gay because your parents didn't adhere to patriarchy enough.

HTUS part 8 - Gay marriage would be bad for children (who are currently in foster care, thanks to their straight parents.)

HTUS part 9 - What a lifelong virgin & bachelor says about sex is what's right for everyone.

HTUS part 10 - Sex isn't about two people coming together. It's about God being in their bed with them.

Vision Forum

Vision Forum Mission - Their creepy goals

Daddy's Girls in Vision Forum - Property.

Bill Gothard

Courtship Promises -Ensure God's blessing through patriarchy!

Courtship Promises pt. 2 - (coming soon!)

Mercy Ministries - NOTE: You should check out Sean the Blogonaut. He's done more to take this group down than anyone I know of. Great guy, too. :)
Merciless Ministries - Why I think it's a cult

Alcoholics Anonymous/Al-Anon/12 Steps

My Time in Al-Anon - Initial Impression

MTIAA pt. 2 - The Three C's

MTIAA pt. 3 - Fertile Ground

Carol Balizet/My Giggy
Rantings of a Crazy Woman- My grandma's theory about "two realms"
You Look Like God! - My grandma reports a conversation she had with God

My Two Faiths - Me vs. my grandma *and* a more moderate Christian

God of the Gas Tank - From Born in Zion

Various Anti-Gay Orgs

Cure the Gay - From GaytoStraight.org

Coming Out Straight & Other Lies - From ChangeIsPossible.org

Others
Sarah Palin: A Literary Critique - Ripping apart Palin's farewell speech when she quit her job.
Rx for Worry - Apologist book by James Gills I used to fall for
Swearing:The Potty Mouth Sin - From TurnBacktoGod.com

Objectively Nuts - Ha! I got taken in by a Poe, courtesy of Landover Baptist folks

Case for God Review Squared - Reviewing a review of a Karen Armstrong book

God's Will vs. Your Plans - From JustBetweenUs.org

Read more!

Daddy's Girls in Vision Forum

Time to take a little break from Susan the Catholic Bigot for a closer look at Vision Forum. Today I'm looking at one of their annual events - the Father and Daughter Retreat, held in Pine Mountains, Georgia each Spring.

God’s Word speaks volumes to the relationship between fathers and daughters: His most sacred duty is her protection and preservation from childhood to virtuous womanhood.

Um, if you mean he's supposed to get his money's worth out of her virginity, then sure the Bible speaks on it.



Fun! And Biblical.

He leads her, woos her, and wins her with a tenderness and affection unique to the bonds of father and daughter.

Um, no. You aren't supposed to date your daughters, Vision Forum guys, or "woo" them. Parenting is not a romance.

Success in his life mission is directly related to the seriousness and compassion with which he seeks to raise her as an industrious, family-affirming, children-loving woman of God.

You get that dads? Your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to make this little baby girl of yours into a god-fearing broodmare or else you'll be the laughingstock of all the men in your cult!

She, in turn, looks to her father as a loving picture of leadership, of devotion, and of care.

Sure, as long as those things are *true*. But not all dads are great leaders; some of us think devotion (in the religious sense) is

Her relationship with her father will help to define her view of the worth of a woman, the meaning of fulfillment and contentment, and her vision for virtue.

Ha, that explains me then. Grew up without a dad and you all know how promiscuous (the right wing media claims) I am! All that aside, I think we should take a moment to consider what's being said here. We're talking about how a girl will grow up, right? And it looks like our goals aren't for success or riches or academic brilliance - apparently women are supposed to be fulfilled (by what?) content (with what?) and virtuous (asexual to marriage, then on-demand, but not her demand.) Yippee hooray? I realize not all dads have this as a goal for their daughters, and that's good or else I might be more critical of non-single moms.

When these relationships are realized and cultivated, the generational mission of the Christian family is secure.

Well, yes, so long as the "mission of the Christian family" is for women to be repressed broodmares, then of course, brainwashing daughters appropriately into their roles as mothers and servants of men is extremely vital to the mission. But maybe that's not the most desirable outcome after all?

Is it any wonder that Satan is on the prowl seeking to tear the hearts of daughters from their fathers, and driving wedges of indifference between them — fathers with no time for their little girls, and young ladies who have replaced the love of their fathers with the acceptance of peers and inappropriate romantic relationships?

Ooooh Satan wants your little girl! But look, "young ladies" are supposed to go through a separation from their parents and attachment to peers and lovers. So are young (gentle?)men. It's a healthy, normal part of growing up, and while it can be quite tumultuous for some (including me) it serves the ultimate purpose of helping children become adults, capable of carrying on their own lives without the same level of assistance and oversight from their parents. Most of us recognize this, and there are several independence-oriented milestones during the teen years (like dating, and driving, and working a part-time job at the mall.)

The Vision Forum Ministries Father & Daughter Retreat is one step on the journey of recovering the preciousness of this relationship so crucial to the kingdom-building work of the Church.

Jesus needs your daughter's vagina to bring forth the Kingdom of God! Sign her up today.

And in case you're still wondering - this is what the Bible has to say about fathers and daughters.

1. Your daughters make a great substitute when the townsfolk want to rape your male guest. (Genesis 19:6)
2. It's okay for your daughters to get you drunk and sleep with you. I mean, your male line needs to pass on! (Genesis 19:30-38)
3. You can sell your daughter into sexual slavery, as long as you follow these prescriptions (Exodus 21:7-8)
4. She's dirty a good portion of the time, and you shouldn't go near here (Leviticus 15:19-30,33)
5. If you misbehave, God will make your daughters "whore after" other gods (Hosea 4:13)
6. Your wife is going to be "unclean" a lot longer if she has a daughter than a son (Leviticus 12:2-5)

There are more, but this should give you some impression of what God thinks of your precious little baby girl. Oh, and today's picture is from their site. It's not necessarily creepy, until you put it in context of the whole "wooing" thing.

More to come on this and the Catholic bigotry as the week continues!

Read more!

Vision Forum

A reader has asked me to take a look at Vision Forum, headed by Doug Philips. I have, and I think that place warrants a full series. This organization isn't just an apologetics ministry, like CARM, or creationist money making venture, like Answers in Genesis. Vision Forum is about total transformation of American family life and civil liberties, to more closely resemble their interpretation of the Bible. I'm not going to focus so much on the historicity of Jesus, the accuracy of Biblical accounts, the canonization of Scripture, or theological disputes. Since Vision Forum is focused on patriarchy and the family (you know, women and kids, who aren't equal people in their own right,) I'll be focusing on the same issues. I'll explain why I think the Vision Forum prescribed lifestyle is detrimental to women, children, and yes, even men.

Let's just take a look at the Vision Forum Mission Statement from their website at VisionForumMinistries.org. (Note: All materials used are copyrighted, but are reproduced on AngietheAntiTheist.blogspot.com in accordance with Fair Use laws.)

Our Mission - Preserving Our Covenant with God through Biblical Patriarchy and Multi-Generational Faithfulness

Keeping up our end of the bargain with the Man in the Sky by keeping women down and rejecting evolution. Got it.

1. Turning the hearts of fathers to their families.

Well that sounds nice, right? Dads liking their kids seems like a really good thing on its face, but let's see how Doug Philips thinks dads should treat their kids before we pass judgment.

2. Proclaiming the Nobility and Glory of Motherhood

Well motherhood and fatherhood are both extremely important. Not only are children necessary for the survival of the species (thus giving all of us an investment in how children are raised and cared for) but humans are social creatures, and we can expect that we will spend most of our lives interacting with other people who have also been raised by parents. So yes, I think it can be beneficial to recognize the important roles caretakers, teachers, and parents all play in the shaping of children. But that does not mean we should present motherhood as the highest or only aspiration a woman should have in life. (I'll get to why I suspect this of Vision Forum in a moment.)

3. Reviving the Doctrine of “Women and Children First”

Well, as a woman and a mother, I can certainly see the appeal to having my needs met first, or my survival valued. Who among us wouldn't like to live to see tomorrow? But I find "doctrine" to be an odd word choice, and so I will keep one slanted eye on it for a moment while I ponder its meaning in this context.

4. Embracing the Blessing of Children and the Sanctity of Human Life

Ah, now you've lost me. Not because I disagree that children can be a blessing. My son is amazing. He has the most infectious laugh you've ever heard and he actively requests to be tickled. Do you have any idea how great that combination is? But let's be honest for a moment (or always, whichever.)

Raising a kid is a huge undertaking, and it's not for everyone, and even for the people who love it, it's not always the right time. My son is a handful. He's bright and his curiosity level far exceeds his caution. He takes a lot of supervision and a lot of patience. If he gets those things, we're great, but if he doesn't... Life gets challenging. I only want one kid, and I've already got him. And let me make clear, Vision Forum not only opposes abortion; they oppose contraception.

This isn't "accept however many pregnancies you have, despite birth control" version of "everything happens for a reason" that I heard from many people when I had my own abortion. This is "acitvely seek to have as many children as possible." It's very, very different, especially when it's coupled by those prior aspects of the mission statement. Also, here Doug Philips mentions the "sanctity" of life. By this he means everything from opposing euthanasia to giving embryos greater rights and privileges than women.

5. Building a Culture of Virtuous Boyhood and Girlhood

So, no dating, no premarital sex, no sex education, no girls playing sports, no boys playing with dolls, and no getting a job at the local fast food place during high school, right?

6. Reinforcing Godly Masculinity and Femininity

Run away, run away, run away! Those gender roles stuck men with all of the decision making responsibility and burden, and women with none. They deprive people of healthy partnerships, and force them into unbalanced and often abusive relationships. There's a reason why developed nations treat women more fairly, and why women are accorded the right to vote, to own property, to win custody, and to work. Because we're good enough.

7. Understanding Family Culture as Religion Externalized

So, how you treat your family is how you worship your god? Or maybe you mean that children are there to carry on the meme of your faith to future generations of god-fearing mass-produced children?

8. Teaching History as the Providence of God

Wait, all of it? Even slavery and the Holocaust and the Iraq War?

9. Developing Biblical Worldview Through Presuppositional Thinking

Okay, I almost had a cream soda through the nose situation here. "Presuppositional thinking" is fallacious thinking. It literally means, "Taking this thing as true first, and using this assumption as the basis of my worldview." It's dumb and it shows how little evidence the Bible has going for it, if one must first presume it is true before finding it believable.

10. Training Character by Hebrew Discipleship and Home Education

Well, I don't know what he means by Hebrew discipleship, so I'll just note it and move on for now. Notice though that he lists home education as being for "training character" (as opposed to providing, you know, an education.) Helping children to develop a social character is important, but you can do it without home schooling. Most parents do, in fact.

11. Communicating the Applicability of the Law of God

In other words, applying Biblical law to today's society. Um, let's not. I really don't like the idea that I have to marry a man if he rapes me, or else get stoned to death. Really, there's nothing about Biblical law I like better than the laws we have today in the United States.

12. Addressing the Ethical Issues of the 21st Century

By this he means issues like abortion (against it) euthanasia (against it) stem cell research (against it) family planning (against it) and the Pill (against it). Yeah, that's a great way of dealing with issues from the 21st century: Just be opposed to all of them! (Why am I guessing he belongs to the party of No?)

13. Preparing Men to Stand in the Gates

Huh? No, seriously. What does this mean? There must be an awful lot of back story I'm missing out on here. Yay for in-group lingo?

14. Encouraging Unity Between Church and Home

With the Church, of course, in the "headship" position over the Home, much as the man is in "headship" over the woman.

So ladies, would you like to sign on to an untold (but probably large) number of pregnancies and births, to raising lots and lots of children without help from your husband, while serving his wishes and following all his commands, and never getting to make any decisions, but just doing whatever the church says your husband says you should do? Me neither!

[Edit: For anyone interested in more on the Vision Forum life from someone who actually lived it, I highly recommend the blog and community at NoLongerQuivering.com.]

Read more!

Ham-boned Arguments

For friends and readers: I have altitude sickness. I've spent my life at sea level, and now I'm in the mile high city. Kid doesn't seem to be having too many troubles, fortunately. He's got a stuffy nose but that's about all. I, on the other hand, feel like my very bones are tired, and getting out of bed takes a lot of energy. On the plus side, I'm much better off emotionally here in Denver, so what's a little altitude sickness?

Viking is over a lot, and he plays video games for the Kid (who loves to watch but keeps saying, "My turn? My turn?" till he gets the controller, and then just makes the guy run around in circles.) Once I'm feeling better, I'll return to making YouTube videos (though probably not at quite the same rate, since Kid is out of school till he starts Kindergarten in the fall.) [Edit: I made one today.] With all that said, let's move on to an apologetic. (Once I'm feeling better, and once the Kid is in school, I'll go back to writing childhood trauma stories.)

Separation of Christianity and State
by Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis

Almost all Americans have heard the phrase “separation of church and state.” It has been used as something of a club to “beat down” and eliminate Christianity from public places, including symbols (like crosses), disallow Bible reading and prayer in public schools, and stop the teaching of creation in science classes.

When dealing with Ken Ham, it's important to remember that he won't let one lie per sentence suffice. Separation of church and state is beneficial both to the state and to the church. It has in no way been used as a club to "beat down" Christianity. Its purpose is to stop Christianity (or whatever other religion like Islam becomes dominant) from beating down the rest of us and our free and civil society. The church doesn't step in and tell government what to do, and the government doesn't step in and tell church what to do. It's a win-win situation, but not to Ken Ham.

Christianity has hardly been "eliminated" from public spaces. Tim Tebow's running around the football field with John 3:16 in his eye black. There are street preachers in every college town in the country, railing against the sins of getting an education and having a good time. There are Christian prayer meetings in the Pentagon (something which would make our founding fathers turn in their graves, if their bodies were still animate.)

Bible reading and prayer in public schools have not (and never will be) disallowed. State mandated prayers that everyone in school must say, directed to the Christian god and violating the freedom of religion for every child in the school, are no longer allowed. But individual students and groups of students can pray - at lunch, before an athletic event, or at the flagpole. I was in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes when I attended public school, and we met on school grounds during school hours on club days.

Crosses and other religious displays are permitted on any private property, just not on government property, because that's space we all share (and we don't all share your religion.) And creation isn't taught in science class because it isn't science. The fact that you consider this an element of a Christian "beat down" betrays the whole "Intelligent Design isn't *religious!*" outrage your own side tries so desperately to drum up. You cannot claim it is science, supported on its own merits, and simultaneously claim that it is religious persecution to not allow you to lie to children in government funded schools.

Now, where does the phrase “separation of church and state” come from? It is not a part of the original U.S. Constitution of 1787, as most people falsely believe, or in any of its amendments. In reality, the idea of a “wall of separation” between church and state came from a private letter from President Thomas Jefferson, and it has sadly been misused to slowly, but surely, eliminate Christianity from the public sector—and replace it with an anti-God religion.

The phrase "separation of church and state" did indeed appear in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. James Madison also wrote, "Strongly guarded... is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." (Since these guys basically wrote the thing, I think it's safe to believe them on what their intentions were.) Here's more from Americans United for a Separation of Church and State:

At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.

Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state."

Now that we've cleared up the history and its relevance, we need to address Ken Ham's fear-mongering deceit. There is no anti-God religion powerfully taking over the nation. This is not Soviet Russia and secular humanists are not the "militant atheists" you imagine - not even as anti-theist humanists. Humanism: it's a good thing.

The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was intended to protect the church from the (federal) government, not the government from the church. Therefore, no “national” church or religion is allowed to be established by the federal government.

Here we're talking about intention. Intention is not the same as interpretation, and if we want to know what the authors of the Constitution thought, we have only to look at their public and private statements on the matter about their intentions. (Yes, people sometimes lie about intentions, but it's extremely doubtful the founding fathers would have lied about their intentions for the Constitution.) Ken here has no evidence of the founders intentions - just assertions. So allow me to provide the relevant data points.

Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.
- President John Adams "A Defense of Government of the United States of America (1787-88)

The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both;
- James Madison; Letter to Edward Everett, March 18, 1823

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-- President Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

There are many more, with a good sampling here. What was that again Ken?

I will highlight key words of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .

You can see that the “separation of church and state” phrase is nowhere in the Amendment (or the rest of the Constitution).

God is also nowhere in the Constitution. Neither are Jesus or Christianity. It's a secular document, composed by liberal Enlightenmnet era Christians and Deists (and possibly a few atheists.) And as for the words themselves not appearing in the Constitution, I turn once again to the Americans United for a Separation of Church and State.

As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."

And now let's see Ken's version...

The 1802 letter from Jefferson was sent to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in response to the group’s letter to him. Jefferson was trying to assure the Baptists that the federal government would never be permitted to interfere with the church. In fact, in his letter, Jefferson states:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

And what about this aren't you getting, Ken? Jefferson was saying that you can't stop gay marriage because your Bible calls it an abomination - that the government should only legislate on actions which are deleterious, and not on beliefs which are held. He's talking about the kind of government I want.

Today, secular scholars have lifted the Danbury letter out of its entire historical context and have turned the so-called “wall” metaphor completely on its head.
“Separation of church and state” is now used to protect the government from the influence of the church—establishing a policy of freedom “from” religion, which in reality has become “separation of Christianity and state.” This would have been an entirely foreign and unintended concept to the Founding Fathers.

No, that would not have been foreign or unintended. To wit,

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

Yeah, this isn't a Christian nation, and our laws aren't based on the Bible or on Christianity (which might be why they make no reference to either!) Let's see what Thomas Jefferson, coiner of the phrase, had to say about separation of church and state in a speech he gave to Virginia Baptists in 1808.

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.

I think I've demonstrated good evidence for my case - that the founders intended for this to be a nation of no government religion, separation of church and state, and free exercise of religion for those who choose it. Let's see what Ham-bone has to support his case.

This misrepresentation of the Constitution was witnessed once again as I attended a debate in March, in which Rev. Barry Lynn, a liberal minister, lawyer, and the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, spoke. Not only did he argue for separation, but claimed that government “neutrality” towards Christianity was his group’s aim. Sadly, most Americans (Christians included) have also been duped into believing that the so-called “separation of church and state” requires eliminating the Christian God and creating a neutral situation. But there is no such position as neutrality. Indeed, one is either for Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30)!

Even the other Christians are against me! I'm in the minority, so I must be right! Ahem. We've amped up the pressure here now, haven't we? Suddenly Reverend Barry Lynn is against Him? Now Ken Ham has determined that the only way to be for Jesus is to be for a government run by churches (and you know clergy, like him.) Never mind, for the moment, what the Constitution has to say about such things. I don't remember JESUS ever saying anything about running the government! Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, pretty unconcerned with earthly things. He was all "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and "sell all that you have, give the money to the poor." That's not the same as "elect Sarah Palin" and "keep people ignorant of science, fight life saving medical advancements, and deny women the right to bodily autonomy." It certainly isn't, "Go shoot up the brown people for their oil."

The religion of naturalism (atheism) has been imposed on the public education system, and on the culture as a whole. For instance, science textbooks in the public schools now typically define science as naturalism (atheism):

Science requires repeatable observations and testable hypotheses. These standards restrict science to a search for natural causes for natural phenomena . . . . Supernatural explanations of natural events are simply outside the bounds of science.

This is the "non overlapping magisteria" argument, which Richard Dawkins discusses at length in "The God Delusion" (which I am just now finally reading. Thanks again to Lee from St. Louis for the atheist library!) I think what it is saying, very politely, is that the supernatural is not observable, repeatable, or testable because there is no evidence any of it actually exists. And of course, the way you would verify if something supernatural did exist would be through science. It's a very good way of determining whether or not a claim is true, and religion just folds.

Getting back to Ken's original lies: Atheism is not a religion. I did a whole video on it. Atheism is not naturalism, at least not in any religious worship sense. (Although I do like nature quite a lot, I don't worship anything.) He's trying to say that a competing religion is being imposed on our youth, so that he can cry unfair that he isn't being allowed to do the same. He's not looking out for children - he's jealous because he's being deprived of valuable brain washing opportunities. But here's the thing, not only is atheism not a religion, it isn't a philosophy either. Atheists don't universally agree on anything that I'm aware of. There are anti-choice atheists, conservative atheists, atheists in fox holes, pole dancing atheists, anti-porn crusader atheists... We come in all flavors. We have no unifying dogma we are trying to impose on anyone, even if some of us would really, really like it if you would just put down the holy book and take a couple of deep breaths.

In keeping with this pronouncement, these books teach molecules-to-man evolution, based only on unproven natural processes, as fact! In other words, they have eliminated the supernatural and replaced it with naturalism. In reality, they have eliminated the Christian worldview and replaced it with a secular, atheistic one!

Dude, calm down. You made so many false equations in that mini rant, I'm a bit concerned about the state of your heart. Chill. There is nothing nefarious about the teaching of science in science class (nor history in history class, despite what the Texas State Board of Education may claim.) The theory of evolution - what Ken here is really concerned with - is true. That's why it gets taught in science class and goddidit doesn't. It's not religious persecution, and it's not government sponsored atheist religion. It's just a matter of which one is science and which one is bullshit.

Sadly, because many Christians have falsely believed that there can be a neutral position, and have also been duped regarding the so-called “separation of church and state,” they are not prepared to boldly and unashamedly stand on the Word of God as they confront issues like abortion, “gay” marriage, racism, etc. By shrinking back, believers have allowed the secularists to impose their anti-God atheistic religion on the public schools—and the culture as a whole.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Did he just say racism? He wants to stand on the Word of God? (I guess he means the Bible, but I've already explained why I don't think Christians should call it that.) The Bible says you can kill and enslave anyone who's not a fellow Jew! The Bible is immoral and outdated and false! And you want to use this book to control my uterus, tell my friends they can't be a family, and be bigoted and racist? Well, fuck you!

Answers in Genesis has launched its “I am Not Ashamed” campaign to challenge Christians to publicly and unashamedly stand on the Word of God. Only then, from the basis of the Bible’s absolute authority, will Christians be able to effectively combat the immorality that plagues our nation.

Wow. Imagine how big of a prick you can be, if you think you have absolute authority in your hand? Case in point: Ken Ham.

What a douche nozzle.

Read more!

Is Jesus God? pt. 4/4

It's time for our fourth and final installment on Paul E. Little's article "Beyond Blind Faith." Let's see how he's done so far. Well, at first he said Jesus' story couldn't have been so widely circulated if it wasn't true. Then he said if he wasn't telling the truth, he was either crazy, lying, or never actually claimed to be god. (That part was written into the story later.) For some inexplicable reason, Mr. Little seemed to feel the demigod answer was most likely given the information at hand. Huh. In the third entry, he calimed that Jesus led a sinless life, and that this was evidence he was somehow the creator of the universe and arbiter of right and wrong. Oh, and that Jesus could do miracles (like Derren Brown.) So let's see what he has in store for us today.

Y'all ready for this?

The Life of Jesus - Facts About His Resurrection

Jesus' death was by public execution on a cross. The government said it was for blasphemy. Jesus said it was to pay for our sin. After being severely tortured, Jesus' wrists and feet were nailed to a cross where He hung, eventually dying of slow suffocation. A sword was thrust into His side to confirm His death.

Hey, anybody else notice that the "hands and feet" of their childhood just got substituted with "wrists and feet?" That's because it's doubtful hands could have hold a human body (unless his wrists were also tied to the board, which isn't mentioned in the Bible.) The most common method of Roman crucifixion at the time Christ was supposedly executed was by driving a nail through the radius and ulna bones, just arm-wards of the wrist.

However, that famous skeptic Doubting Thomas said in John 20:25 "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." (According to Scripture, Thomas was given this evidence. Yet we are atheists are often scorned or detested for own desire to have god's existence or attributes proven.) I don't have a firm opinion either way. I just find this kind of Christian infighting interesting to watch.

The body of Jesus was then wrapped in linens covered with approximately 100 pounds of gummy-wet spices. His body was placed in a solid rock tomb A 1 1/2- 2 ton boulder was rolled by levers to secure the entrance. Because Jesus had publicly said He would rise from the dead in three days, a guard of trained Roman soldiers was stationed at the tomb. And an official Roman seal was affixed to the tomb entrance declaring it government property.

Well (taking, for the moment, the Biblical account up to this point to be accurate,) what we have here is a difficult situation, sure, but far from an impossible one. I really like illusions and conjuring. If you spend anytime watching or studying these techniques, you'll quickly realize that a situation can seem impossible, and you don't know how the illusionist managed it, but you know that "magic" isn't really the answer. I like that it allows for a certain amount of ignorance. I can say, "I don't know how he did that" without immediately deciding, "It must be a miracle!" But it seems harder for people to do that with religion, because no one has told them that it's all performance art, like we have been told about stage hypnotists and magicians.

In spite of all this, three days later the body was gone. Only the grave linens remained, in the form of the body, but caved in. The boulder formerly sealing the tomb was found up a slope, some distance away from the tomb.

Okay, so the body was gone. That doesn't really scream "resurrection" now does it? Hell, Eva Peron's fantastically preserved corpse was missing for 16 years, as it was hidden in secret locations around Argentina and Italy! Not every missing body (or probably not any) indicates bodily resurrection.

The earliest explanation circulated was that the disciples stole the body! In Matthew 28:11-15, we have the record of the reaction of the chief priests and the elders when the guards gave them the infuriating and mysterious news that the body was gone. They gave the soldiers money and told them to explain that the disciples had come at night and stolen the body while they were asleep.

Um, excuse but no, we do not have the "record" of what the guards said. We have a story, written down by unknown men, written decades after the "fact" not by an eyewitness, and unsubstantiated by evidence. That is not a record; it is a story. What's more, it's a story written by those who wanted their readers to believe this version of events. The Bible was not an unbiased observational recording of history, and to act as though it was is foolish to say the least.

That story was so false that Matthew didn't even bother to refute it! What judge would listen to you if you said that while you were asleep you knew it was your neighbor who came into your house and stole your television set? Who knows what goes on while he's asleep? Testimony like this would be laughed out of any court.

Is that really what you're gonna go with - the guards were sleeping so they can't prove the body didn't resurrect? What's more, while you probably couldn't get your neighbor convicted on hearsay alone (although you can apparently start religions on little else) which do you think would cause greater laughter - saying your neighbor took your TV or saying it miraculously ascended into heaven as part of the divine plan of an almighty creator? "He rose from the dead" is a much more outlandish claim, and requires more evidence to seem plausible, than "His followers took the body." Though we have no evidence for either claim, the odds of resurrection still are not 50% because resurrection is a much less likely occurrence than theft, so we can more heavily weight the probably against resurrection.

Furthermore, we are faced with a psychological and ethical impossibility. Stealing the body of Christ is something totally foreign to the character of the disciples and all that we know of them.

Once again, I must point out that the Bible was composed and compiled by men with an agenda. "All that we know of them" was written down by men who hoped to preserve the Christian faith (as opposed to say, their wives or neighbors or enemies.) Furthermore, the disciples were not sinless (and as we discussed earlier, neither was Jesus.) Peter denied Christ three times following his crucifixion, after telling Jesus he wouldn't. Let's not forget to mention that the gospels give different lists for who the twelve disciples are!

It would mean that they were perpetrators of a deliberate lie which was responsible for the deception and ultimate death of thousands of people. It is inconceivable that, even if a few of the disciples had conspired and pulled off this theft, they would never have told the others.

Why is this so inconceivable? And why do you find a miracle more likely than a conspiracy? If it was anyone else who was claimed to rise from the dead, would you believe it just on hearsay? On a few people (who were devout followers, like cultists) saying they had seen him a few days after his very public execution? Somehow I doubt it.

Each of the disciples faced the test of torture and martyrdom for his statements and beliefs. Men and women will die for what they believe to be true, though it may actually be false. They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie. If ever a man tells the truth, it is on his deathbed. And if the disciples had taken the body, and Christ was still dead, we would still have the problem of explaining His alleged appearances.

Um, no, we wouldn't. Again, the Bible wasn't written by the disciples. Maybe a man named Jesus lived. He had a following; he claimed to be the son of god; he was reported to do miracles. He was killed for the crime of blasphemy (and since he did nothing miraculous or god-like during his trial or execution that might persuade people it wasn't so much blasphemy as truth, they had no reason to doubt it was blasphemy.) But people remain committed to him, and wait for his return (which it sounded like would happen during their lives.) Between a few and several decades later, some anonymous guys write down the four gospel stories in the canon, as well as the apocryphal gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are practically copies of one another and the missing text Q. John is extremely different, and is thought by scholars to have been most likely composed in Asia Minor. None of the "resurrection facts" are consistent across all four gospels. There just isn't any reason to think that what the gospels say was ever factually true.

A second hypothesis is that the authorities, Jewish or Roman, moved the body! But why? Having put guards at the tomb, what would be their reason for moving the body? Also, what about the silence of the authorities in the face of the apostles' bold preaching about the Resurrection in Jerusalem? The ecclesiastical leaders were seething with rage, and did everything possible to prevent the spread of this message that Jesus rose from the dead. They arrested Peter and John and beat and threatened them, in an attempt to close their mouths.

So wait, they were silent and not doing enough to stop the apostles' preaching, but at the same time they were arresting and beating the apostles? Um, yeah.

But there was a very simple solution to their problem. If they had Christ's body, they could have paraded it through the streets of Jerusalem. In one fell swoop they would have successfully smothered Christianity in its cradle. That they did not do this bears eloquent testimony to the fact that they did not have the body.

Again, obviously, the Bible was written by supporters of the story, not by disinterested observers. Second, let me take this "They ain't get no evidence" tact of the author's and apply it with a twist.

If Christians really did have a God, they could parade through the streets performing miracles. In one fell swoop they could successfully smother atheism in its demands for evidence. That they do not do this bears eloquent testimony to the fact that they do not have this god.

Cute, huh?

Another popular theory has been that the women, distraught and overcome by grief, missed their way in the dimness of the morning and went to the wrong tomb. In their distress they imagined Christ had risen because the tomb was empty. This theory, however, falls before the same fact that destroys the previous one. If the women went to the wrong tomb, why did the high priests and other enemies of the faith not go to the right tomb and produce the body? Further, it is inconceivable that Peter and John would succumb to the same mistake, and certainly Joseph of Arimathea, owner of the tomb, would have solved the problem. In addition, it must be remembered that this was a private burial ground, not a public cemetery. There was no other tomb nearby that would have allowed them to make this mistake.

You'd think he'd lead with that first one "There was no other tomb nearby" rather than all the character assessment ones. Mr. Little seems to think good people never tell lies (or aren't deceived) and that therefore character is the exclusive approach to determining the veracity of truth claims. He did the same thing in the Liar, Lunatic, Lord segment. It is highly unlikely that anyone goes their entire life without telling some kind of falsehood. Yet, this improbability is what Mr. Little is using as his leading support in favor of his story. He acts as though these women being mistaken or telling a lie is less likely than a supernatural raising of the dead. Just think about that for a moment.

Also, Mr. Little refers to them as "the women" and not by name because, again, the gospel accounts disagree on the basic "facts" of the story, like who was at the resurrection and at the tomb. Now let's talk about this sentence, "it is inconceivable that Peter and John would succumb to the same mistake." Inconceivable? I do not think it means what you think it means.

The swoon theory has also been advanced to explain the empty tomb. In this view, Christ did not actually die. He was mistakenly reported to be dead, but had swooned from exhaustion, pain, and loss of blood. When He was laid in the coolness of the tomb, He revived. He came out of the tomb and appeared to His disciples, who mistakenly thought He had risen from the dead.

I gotta say, I'm just not emotionally invested in this one. It seems unnecessary in the face of the history of gospel authorship. I really do believe someone just made it all up - that the tomb was never really empty (supposing, of course, that a historical Jesus ever existed at all.)

This is a theory of modern construction. It first appeared at the end of the eighteenth century. It is significant that not a suggestion of this kind has come down from antiquity among all the violent attacks which have been made on Christianity. All of the earliest records are emphatic about Jesus' death.

All of the earliest records - and what do you mean by records anyway? Hearsay and anonymous gospels? Because the Roman records don't mention Jesus.

But let us assume for a moment that Christ was buried alive and swooned. Is it possible to believe that He would have survived three days in a damp tomb without food or water or attention of any kind? Would He have had the strength to extricate Himself from the graveclothes, push the heavy stone away from the mouth of the grave, overcome the Roman guards, and walk miles on feet that had been pierced with spikes? Such a belief is more fantastic than the simple fact of the Resurrection itself.

Ha ha ha ha! It's less fantastic, in reality. Why? Because all of those things, while improbable, are individually possible events or actions. Whereas the reanimation of a body and mind after brain death is not. On the one hand you've got "very unlikely approaching infinity" against the swoon theory (again, not one I find plausible myself.) On the other hand, you've got "never happened in recorded medical history, impossible approaching infinity." Neither one is at all likely to have occurred, but one is it least (very faintly) possible (or if it is not, it is because of the multiplication of improbabilities, rather than the multiplication of y where y represents impossibility.)

Even the German critic David Strauss, who by no means believes in the Resurrection, rejected this idea as incredible. He said:

It is impossible that One who had just come forth from the grave half dead, who crept about weak and ill, who stood in the need of medical treatment, of bandaging, strengthening, and tender care, and who at last succumbed to suffering, could ever have given the disciples the impression that He was a conqueror over death and the grave; that He was the Prince of Life.

Well yes, it's a strawman. That's the problem with it all right. It's also not what most of us are claiming, or most of those critics Mr. Little himself mentioned as evidence against this particular theory.

Finally, if this theory is correct, Christ Himself was involved in flagrant lies. His disciples believed and preached that He was dead but came alive again. Jesus did nothing to dispel this belief, but rather encouraged it.

Again, Jesus telling a lie is more statistically probable (people lie, and whatever else he may have been, a historical Jesus would have been a person.)

The only theory that adequately explains the empty tomb is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

And here, in a nutshell, is the difference between a theological theory and a scientific Theory. The apologist pokes holes in what he claims are the alternatives - liar, lunatic, and legend; disciples stole the body, or Jews, or Romans (but never the legitimate objection that the tomb may have never been empty, or that the Bible is an inconsistent cobbling together of stories, not a careful record of contemporary events.) He hasn't actually done anything to provide evidence for his own theory. He has simply claimed to have all the possibilities, rejects the others (for odd and illegitimate reasons,) and then says, "Ta da! Mine wins by process of elimination!" It's like creationists. There is nothing to "Intelligent Design" other than the claim that it occurred.

A scientific theory, on the other hand, has to have all observable facts agreeing with it, and none disagreeing with it. It must explain what happens and how (and in some cases, why.) Evolution by natural selection is supported by fossils, genetics, homologous forms, embryology, and countless disciplines besides. There is evidence aplenty. For the resurrection, though, all we have are the claims that a man named Jesus was executed, that his tomb was empty, and that his disciples lying or being mistaken was less likely than a supernatural miracle. Mr. Little's argument is laughable on its face - and disappointing.

The Life of Jesus Means Life For Us

Jesus Christ rose from the dead, proving He is God and is alive today.

Graaaaah! You haven't proven the first thing. You cannot use "Claim X" as proof of "Claim Y" when X is nothing more than a claim! (And no, I don't know why this post is full of variables.)

He is willing to be more than worshiped. He is willing to be known and to come into our lives.

Okay, creepy. That is totally his emphasis, by the way, not mine.

The late Carl Gustav Jung said, "The central neurosis of our time is emptiness." All of us have a deep longing for our life to have meaning and depth. Jesus offers us a more meaningful, abundant life, which comes through a relationship with Him. Jesus said, "I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly."

Okay, we've got appeal to authority in the first sentence. We've also got an emotional appeal in there, with the suggestion that life without Jesus is somehow empty. My life without Jesus is about a thousand fold improved (she typed on her new laptop, from her 2-bedroom apartment with beautiful windows and lots of natural light, as her beautiful son took a nap beside her.)Let's see, for the rest of the paragraph we've got claim, claim, claim. Huh, no evidence of any kind. (Remember how Mr. Little's article started by telling us we would be given good reasons to believe, not just on faith? Yeah, I don't think that's happening before we reach the end.)

The only way we can experience this life is by being in relationship with Him. Jesus came to take our sin on Himself, on the cross. He chose to receive punishment for our sin, so that our sin would no longer be a barrier between us and Him.

Wait, now there's sin? You're relying on me already thinking Jesus is something I need, or that I'm dirty. You Christians really want people to hate themselves, because if they don't, how can they love Jesus? If they don't believe they need a blood sacrifice to atone for their own inherent wickedness, what reason would they have to worship your bloodthirsty, capricious, malevolent god?

He went to the cross for us, all of us. Because He fully paid for your sin, He offers you complete forgiveness and a relationship with Him.

Guilt trip! Guilt trip! Guilt trip!

This means you have a decision to make.

(Descending notes) Duh duh dun!

Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him.

Whoa now, Jesus, slow down. There will be no coming into me, or unto me, or onto me! You're just not my type.

Right now you can invite Jesus Christ into your life. You could say to Him something like, "I do believe in you. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I ask You to forgive me and to come into my life right now. Thank You for giving me a relationship with You."

So what do you say, kiddos? Wanna ask a 2,000 year old missing corpse into your heart on the hearsay of anonymous men, vastly ignorant in biology and medicine, with clear motivations to propagate the story? While you're at it, wanna give Scientology all of your money and thousands of free work hours so they can "clear" you of your body thetans? I mean, it's all written down in a book.

You'd have to believe the L. Ron Hubbard was lying if you were going to disbelieve the teachings of Scientology! And why, well, you wouldn't do that, because the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard say that L. Ron Hubbard is a really cool guy (and a physicist and a naval commander.) See, the teachings of Scientology teach that Scientology teachings are true! So you know you can believe it, not just on faith, but on the teachings of Scientology!

What's the difference?

Anteaters, I'm disappointed. I keep hoping that an apologist can stump me for a while - can say something that gives me pause and let's me think. The foundations of Christianity are so weak, and the apologetics are no better. Yet, over a billion people believe this stuff to be true.

The Bible was written by men. If you get nothing else out of this series, please Christians, understand that the Bible is not the inerrant word of any god.

Best hopes for all.

Read more!