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!

Is Jesus God? pt. 3/4

This is my third day tackling the logical fallacies, deceptions, and things that make you say, "Huh?" in Paul E. Little's EveryStudent.com article "Beyond Blind Faith" (which is supposed to give us good solid reasons and evidence for Jesus being God.)

On the first day, all Mr. Little brought to the table was the fact that the Jesus story went viral and Bible verses where Jesus claimed to be the son of god, able to heal, and able to forgive sins. I pointed out why these had no impact on the validity of the truth claims being made (and why Jesus has no more evidence for his divinity than Charles Manson.) On the second day, we dealt with the Liar, Lunatic, Lord, or Legend apologetics. Mr. Little could only claim that Jesus was the Truth (his capital T) but he didn't offer any compelling evidence as to why we should think that. Let's see what's in store for us today, shall we?

The Life of Jesus - How He Proved His Deity

His Unique Moral Character
His moral character coincided with His claims. Many asylum inmates claim to be celebrities or deities. But their claims are belied by their characters. Not so with Christ. He is unique -- as unique as God.

First of all, I find it odd to say it is someone's "character" which reveals them not to be, say, Abraham Lincoln. It's also important to point out that not every delusion person is in an institution. I could make an obvious remark about religious people, but even refraining from that easy target, many people believe in ghosts, communication with the dead, homeopathy, so-called "9-11 Truth", a faked lunar landing, vast rightwing/leftwing conspiracies, government cover-up of UFOs, etc. Again, it isn't "character" we use to judge the validity of their claims - it is evidence. Can you actually divine water, or are you just a bit gullible?

Jesus Christ was sinless. The caliber of His life was such that He was able to challenge His enemies with the question, "Can any of you prove Me guilty of sin?" He was met by silence, even though He addressed those who would have liked to point out a flaw in His character.

Well, now this directly contradicts what Mr. Little was saying in Part 1, where he discussed Jesus' trial, and the Jewish elders accusing him of blasphemy. Jesus was only "sinless" if we excuse each of his transgressions, the largest of which I would imagine would be this blasphemy. But let's see if there are any other sins we can say Jesus committed in the Bible. Well, he certainly didn't honor his mother. Check out John 2:3-4 and Matthew 12:46-49. Jesus definitely taught that you should abandon your own family and instead consider your fellow believers to be your new family (like most cult leaders.) Jesus also worked on the Sabbath, which is another of the ten commandments. He's batting at 80% as it stands, even without counting his blasphemy as taking the Lord's name in vain. How was Jesus sinless again?

We read of the temptations of Jesus, but we never hear of a confession of sin on His part. He never asked for forgiveness, though He told His followers to do so.

Yeah, and my grandmother has never recanted her faith healing beliefs, or owned up to her responsibility in Harrison Johnson's death, but that doesn't mean she is innocent.

This lack of any sense of moral failure on Jesus' part is astonishing in view of the fact that it is completely contrary to the experience of the saints and mystics in all ages. The closer men and women draw to God, the more overwhelmed they are with their own failure, corruption, and shortcomings. The closer one is to a shining light, the more he realizes his need of a bath. This is true also, in the moral realm, for ordinary mortals.

Couple of points here. First off, there are some people who do not experience emotions the same way that most of us do. There are sociopaths, and while I'm not claiming Jesus was a sociopath, it could certainly be a possibility he felt no guilt about breaking laws because he was a hypocrite. I mean, hypocrites are incredibly common and demigods aren't, so just going with the odds here, it's not looking too good for Jesus' divinity. It seems like only someone who already believed could come to the conclusion, based on evidence alone, that Jesus was more likely to be a god than mentally off balance.

Second point I'd like to make is how crappy being close to God sounds from Mr. Little's description. You'll feel dirtier and dirtier, be overwhelmed by your own failure and shortcomings, and basically feel like crap? Oh wait, that was kinda true. My life as an atheist is so much happier than my life as a Christian. The constant sense of nagging guilt and incurable shame just didn't give me the "comfort" people claim religion provides.

It is also striking that John, Paul, and Peter, all of whom were trained from earliest childhood to believe in the universality of sin, all spoke of the sinlessness of Christ: "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth."

Pilate, no friend of Jesus, said, "What evil has He done?" He implicitly recognized Christ's innocence. And the Roman centurion who witnessed the death of Christ said, "Surely He was the Son of God."

Okay, this is where I have to explain why the Bible isn't evidence for the Bible. So far, I've let the apologist use Scripture as evidence without complaint; I've just used Scripture that contradicts his point to show where I disagree. But the contradictory, open-to-interpretation nature of the Bible is not its only weakness. Its construction is.

The Bible was written by men, not god. The Bible was scribbled down over hundreds of years, changed, rewritten, transcribed, voted on, canonized, rewritten, transcribed, and changed again. There is no reason to suppose the Bible is the word of God(s).

I challenge anybody to find anywhere where God says "Build this book. This is going to be my Word." - Tracie Harris

Brilliant.

His Ability to Control Nature
Christ demonstrated a power over natural forces which could belong only to God, the Author of these forces.

He stilled a raging storm of wind and waves on the Sea of Galilee. In doing this He provoked from those in the boat the awestruck question, "Who is this? Even the wind and waves obey Him!" He turned water into wine, fed 5,000 people from five loaves and two fish, gave a grieving widow back her only son by raising him from the dead, and brought to life the dead daughter of a shattered father. To an old friend He said, "Lazarus, come forth!" and dramatically raised him from the dead. It is most significant that His enemies did not deny this miracle. Rather, they tried to kill Him. "If we let Him go on like this," they said, "everyone will believe in Him."

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you, Derren Brown. He can walk across broken glass without harm, beat 9 chess masters and grand masters at once, and control a mall full of shoppers with the sound of his voice. (I also recommend "The Heist" where he gets law-abiding citizens to attempt a bank robbery.) Sorry, but Derren Brown is way cooler than Jesus (and a much better dresser, I must say.)

If you must have your water turned into wine, Penn and Teller have got that one down, too. And is it really so extraordinary for Jesus to turn water into wine, when a billion Catholics believe their priests can turn wine into blood? (And if you think all those Catholics are wrong, what makes you think the anonymous authors of the Bible got it right?)

Cured the Sick
Jesus demonstrated the Creator's power over sickness and disease. He made the lame to walk, the dumb to speak, and the blind to see. Some of His healings were of congenital problems not susceptible to psychosomatic cure. The most outstanding was that of the blind man whose case is recorded in John 9. Though the man couldn't answer his speculative questioners, his experience was enough to convince him. "One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!" he declared. He was astounded that his friends didn't recognize this Healer as the Son of God. "Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind," he said. To him the evidence was obvious.

Ha! Nice that he included the bit about psychosomatic cures. This takes care of my first complaint. The second of course is the assumed accuracy that he gives the Bible. Apologists aren't really writing for non-Christians. They are writing for members of the flock who need their faith bolstered. If you accept the Bible as God's one true Word, then of course Bible verses supporting your point of view or your desire will be momentarily comforting to the cognitive dissonance faith yields. But if you don't start with the premise that every story recorded in the Bible is accurate and free from exaggeration, mythologizing, or factual error, then you are not going to be persuaded by what some anonymous goat herder wrote down nearly two thousand years ago.

His Greatest Proof - Rising from the Dead
Jesus' supreme credential to authenticate His claim to deity was His resurrection from the dead. Five times in the course of His life He predicted He would die. He also predicted how He would die and that three days later He would rise from the dead and appear to His disciples.

Surely this was the great test. It was a claim that was easy to verify. It either happened or it didn't.

Sure, at the time it would have been fairly easy to verify, but since we have none of that evidence today, what you're really going to do is ask me to rely on hearsay. A dying and resurrecting god is hardly new to human mythology. What you have is a claim that Jesus died and resurrected; there is no evidence.

The Life of Jesus - Why the Resurrection Is Centrally Important

Both friends and enemies of the Christian faith have recognized the resurrection of Christ to be the foundation stone of the faith. Paul, the great apostle, wrote, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Paul rested his whole case on the bodily resurrection of Christ. Either He did or He didn't rise from the dead. If He did, it was the most sensational event in all of history.

Why? Why would it be so sensational, when Jesus was reviving people right and left in the gospels? Heck, women gave birth in their 90s, according to the Old Testament. That has to be at least as impressive as yet another resurrection, right? And notice how a non-believer like myself is branded an "enemy of the Christian faith." I mean, yes, I'd love to see all religions tossed in the bin, but I'm a non-combatant "enemy."

If Christ rose, we know with certainty that God exists, what He is like, and how we may know Him in personal experience. The universe takes on meaning and purpose, and it is possible to experience the living God in contemporary life.

Uh, no. Whether or not Jesus died and rose again has nothing to do with his claims. It certainly doesn't answer the question of purpose or meaning to the universe. You cannot get from "I have a baseball" to "I know everything about every baseball team and player that ever lived, and all the coaches give me free tickets to every single game." That's the kind of leap Mr. Little makes when he says the single event of resurrection imbues meaning into *everything else*. Here's an idea - what if Jesus did (for the sake of argument) rise from the dead, but he hadn't been to Hell, wasn't the Son of God, and couldn't perform miracles or forgive sins. What if someone else more powerful resurrected him (like he did for Lazarus?) Even if there was substantial evidence to believe the resurrection occurred (which there isn't,) it would not mean other, unproven or unprovable claims about an afterlife, a god, and purpose in the universe would then automatically be true.

On the other hand, if Christ did not rise from the dead, Christianity is an interesting museum piece -- nothing more. It has no objective validity or reality.

What is an "interesting museum piece" anyway? I can't say whether I agree or disagree with this assessment, because I have no idea what he means. Poorly defined terms For the Lose. And his second statement here is rather black-and-white. I can see that some of the food and hygiene laws of the Old Testament would have preserved healthier lives for desert dwellers millenia ago. I can giggle at the eroticism of Song of Solomons. I can appreciate the art tax-free churches have commissioned over the years, and (some of) the music. I can say that some of the verses have nice moral sentiments (though by no means a majority.) There is no need for Mr. Little to paint a strawman of nonbelief, but he has done it nonetheless.

Though it is a nice wishful thought, it certainly isn't worth getting steamed up about. The martyrs who went singing to the lions, and contemporary missionaries who have given their lives while taking this message to others, have been poor deluded fools.

Well, yes. But before you go thinking I am rude and condescending, Christians, please tell me what you think of Islamic martyrs, apostles, and missionaries. Are they poorly deluded fools?

The attack on Christianity by its enemies has most often concentrated on the Resurrection because it has been clearly seen that this event is the crux of the matter.

Whoa, attack? Well, since he was just talking about missionaries and martyrs, this must be something quite serious and violent, right?

A remarkable attack was the one contemplated in the early '30s by a young British lawyer. He was convinced that the Resurrection was mere fable and fantasy. Sensing that it was the foundation stone of the Christian faith, he decided to do the world a favor by once and for all exposing this fraud and superstition. As a lawyer, he felt he had the critical faculties to rigidly sift evidence and to admit nothing as evidence which did not meet the stiff criteria for admission into a law court today.

Oh, so the "attack" was actually just someone questioning dogma. I see. (Also, wouldn't it be evidence considered admissible in the 1?30's, rather than "today?")

However, while Frank Morrison was doing his research, a remarkable thing happened. The case was not nearly as easy as he had supposed. As a result, the first chapter in his book, Who Moved the Stone? is entitled, "The Book That Refused to Be Written." In it he described how, as he examined the evidence, he became persuaded against his will, of the fact of the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Okay, now we're being given the argument from personal experience (combined with the "I used to be an atheist" angle we're all so tired of.) Some guy thought the evidence was compelling. Great, now where is this evidence please? I'm not taking someone else's word for this, but I guess it will have to wait till tomorrow when I conclude this series with Part 4 The Life of Jesus - Facts About His Resurrection (*snort!*)

Read more!

Is Jesus God? pt 2/4

Hello again my faithless Anteaters. Yesterday we started looking at Paul E. Little's EveryStudent.com article "Beyond Blind Faith" on all the evidence showing that Jesus was really god. In my last installment, my basic premise was that unless we presuppose Jesus' divinity, his story is the same as countless other man-gods and cult leaders. Him claiming to be god or the son of god doews not make him distinct, or accurate. So let's see what Mr. Little has for us today.

The Life of Jesus - Four Possible Explanations

As we face the claims of Christ, there are only four possibilities. He was either a liar, a lunatic, a legend, or the Truth. If we say He is not the Truth, we are automatically affirming one of the other three alternatives, whether we realize it or not.

This is, of course, a variation on C.S. Lewis' infamous "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument (which you can read more about here.) I'm glad that in this case our author has included the option of "Legend" (though I wonder why he didn't stick with the alliteration and keep his "Truth" as "Lord.") Now I must disagree with our author's second statement. If we say Jesus was not god, we are still allowing for any one of the remaining three options. Also, I'm not sure this is the most exhaustive list of options possible; however, I am content to proceed from here as if these four possibilites are the only ones.

(1) One possibility is that Jesus lied when He said He was God -- that He knew He was not God, but deliberately deceived His hearers to lend authority to His teaching. Few, if any, seriously hold this position. Even those who deny His deity affirm that He was a great moral teacher. They fail to realize those two statements are a contradiction. Jesus could hardly be a great moral teacher if, on the most crucial point of His teaching -- His identity -- He was a deliberate liar

Well, I know I deny Jesus' divinity and I also disagree with the assessment that he was a great moral teacher. In Matthew 10, Jesus said*

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Such a swell moral teacher, that guy! Jesus only gets a reputation for being so stand-up when he's compared to his "Father." Jesus is less moral than, say, Harry Potter (who didn't have the advantages of being more supernatural than others, or of being impervious to temptation.) Harry Potter is a better self-sacrificing "good versus evil" moral guide than Jesus Christ of the Bible.

Turning to Mr. Little's claim that Jesus could not be a great moral teacher and be a liar, there is great question as to whether or not Jesus (if such a man lived) ever claimed to BE divine. Dr. Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford and a Christian, wrote,

Our growing understanding of the background to the New Testament, the way in which Christian doctrine has developed, the rise of the scientific world-view, and so on, force us to abandon the idea that Jesus was God in any meaningful sense of the word.

I bet that sounds pretty blasphemous to you, but you have to realize, the more someone knows about Biblical history, the less likely they are to believe in the miracles. Scribe errors, politically motivated revisions, exaggeration, myth - all of these are ideas more credible than Jesus turning water into wine for a party trick.

(2) A kinder, though no less shocking possibility, is that He was sincere but self-deceived. We have a name for a person today who thinks he is God. That name is lunatic, and it certainly would apply to Christ if He were deceived on this all-important issue. But as we look at the life of Christ, we see no evidence of the abnormality and imbalance we find in a deranged person. Rather, we find the greatest composure under pressure.

Why is the possibility that he was mistaken "shocking?" You probably don't find the suggestion that perhaps the Dalai Lama is mistaken about his reincarnation to be shocking. So why does Jesus get the automatic benefit of faith? (Answer: Sunday School.)

Presenting all mental illness as derangement is a strawman (or a red herring.) I have mental illnesses. Yet I am also a mom, a writer, and a dozen other things besides. Being mistaken about some aspects of reality, or having quirks, or mood swings, or whatever symptom of mental illness you may present, does not equal being ready for the padded room.

There's a spectrum of mental health, and Jesus could have easily been a tad shy of sane without being a gibbering, drooling person, evidently and obviously insane to everyone around him. I think probably L. Ron Hubbard had some mental illness (like maybe Narcissistic Personality Disorder) yet he was capable of running a large, money-producing criminal organization and died, hiding out on a ranch, with a barn literally filled to bursting with cash. It is possible to be both crazy and successful.

(3) The third alternative is that all of the talk about His claiming to be God is a legend -- that what actually happened was that His enthusiastic followers, in the third and fourth centuries, put words into His mouth He would have been shocked to hear. Were He to return, He would immediately repudiate them.

Haha, and how is "He" supposed to return to repudiate his followers for thinking he was god, if he was not god? I don't even think Christian apologists realize how much everything they say and believe rests on assumption and confirmation bias. It just comes naturally. Moving beyond this bit of silliness, a careful look at Biblical canon history shows how much the Bible really is "book by committee." For a beginner's crash course, I highly recommend this video series of a lecture given by Matt Dillahunty (hi Matt!) for the Atheist Community of Austin. (Check out their TV show and podcast if you like godless logic.)

The legend theory has been significantly refuted by many discoveries of modern archeology. These have conclusively shown that the four biographies of Christ were written within the lifetime of contemporaries of Christ. Some time ago Dr. William F. Albright, world-famous archaeologist now retired from Johns Hopkins University, said that there was no reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written later than A.D. 70.

Let's look at this phrase carefully now, "written within the lifetime of contemporaries of Christ" - So in other words, not written BY contemporaries, but within the lifetime OF contemporaries. The Gospels aren't eyewitness accounts. They aren't even memoirs written later in life. Modern archeology has also shown that Roman history and record keeping (which was quite thorough) has absolutely no record of Jesus. You'd think such a rabble rouser would have made it into the records, wouldn't you? And you know, the four gospels preserved in today's canon were not the only ones written. Online you can find the full text for the Gospel of Thomas, Judas, Mary, Peter, James, and others unattributed to authors. We don't know who wrote the four gospels we have today, but we do know they were writing down legends and stories (and sometimes editing things to make Jesus fit prophecies better.)

For a mere legend about Christ, in the form of the Gospel, to have gained the circulation and to have had the impact it had, without one shred of basis in fact, is incredible.

No, it's really not. Stories of witches, gods, sacrificial gods, resurrecting gods, spirits, demons, and men with superhuman strength are common throughout the world. Humans tell stories, and over time those stories change (especially in oral traditions.)

For this to have happened would be as fantastic as for someone in our own time to write a biography of the late John F. Kennedy and in it say he claimed to be God, to forgive people's sins, and to have risen from the dead. Such a story is so wild it would never get off the ground because there are still too many people around who knew Kennedy. The legend theory does not hold water in the light of the early date of the Gospel manuscripts.

This analogy is very poor. JFK wasn't just known by his family and friends. He was investigated thoroughly by opposing candidates, photographed, filmed, and followed for years. The level of local fame JFK held ws undoubtedly greater than the fame any man named Jesus had. Yet even though we have video footage of JFK being killed, there is still debate in the minds of some on what exactly happened. Eye witnesses to that event are still alive today, yet there are differing accounts (one problem with relying on eye witness testimony.) To suggest that simply because people who knew a (non god) Jesus and saw him die without resurrecting would prevent a resurrection story from circulating is ridiculous.

Think of Elvis sightings. Some people are alive today who knew Elvis. (My ex mother-in-law still carries a ticket stub in her wallet of the first Elvis show she went to.) Yet despite his well-documented death, which the vast majority of people accept as truth, a significant fraction of society believes Elvis never died, and is still wandering around today. And guess what? You can buy books about it! No matter how outlandish a story, it can very well "get off the ground" because humans are gullible and we believe things which are not true.

My next objection is that Kennedy was of course a politician and not a religious figure. A more fitting example would be the Dalai Lama or Desmond Tutu, or indeed, Marshall Applewhite, who claimed to be Jesus and then died for those beliefs (along with many true-believing followers.) Again, nothing has been shown about Jesus that can't be said of dozens or hundreds of others who claimed or were believed to be gods. People make up stories about what we do not understand or do not like. The fact that some stories are appealing memes and get passed on for whatever reason does not mean the stories are true.

(4) The only other alternative is that Jesus spoke the truth. From one point of view, however, claims don't mean much. Talk is cheap. Anyone can make claims. There have been others who have claimed to be God. I could claim to be God, and you could claim to be God, but the question all of us must answer is, "What credentials do we bring to substantiate our claim?" In my case it wouldn't take you five minutes to disprove my claim. It probably wouldn't take too much more to dispose of yours. But when it comes to Jesus of Nazareth, it's not so simple. He had the credentials to back up His claim. He said, "Even though you do not believe Me, believe the evidence of the miracles, that you may learn and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

But that's exactly the point! There is no "evidence of the miracles" to believe. All we have is hearsay, stories, and claims. Jesus doesn't have anything going for him that hundreds of other demigods didn't. As best as I can tell, the only difference is how many followers Christ's story has attracted over the years. The truth claims have no evidence; neither do the miracles. Mr. Little, you still haven't given good reason why the case for Jesus would be any more complex to dispell than the case for your own divinity.

I think a man named Jesus probably did exist (although there is no contemporary extrabiblical evidence for or account of Jesus) and I also think he was a cult leader. I don't think he could or did do any miracles, but I don't find the idea of an off-kilter rabbi claiming to be the longed-for Messiah more incredible than the idea of a god turning himself into a human, so that he could sacrifice himself TO himself, to forgive humans for being born with sinful natures that god gave them. Honestly, the probability gap between these two statements is tremendous.

Tomorrow we'll tackle "The Life of Jesus - How He Proved His Deity" which I hope will have something a little more substantial to bring to the table. Till then, be great and godless!





* When I say something like "Jesus said" please fill in for yourselves, "supposedly" or "according to the Bible." Consider this a blanket implication on any such Biblical claims. Thanks!

Read more!

Is Jesus God? pt 1/4

Okay Internet, let's get started on a new gem from EveryStudent.com. Today's piece is written by Paul E. Little and titled "Beyond Blind Faith" The teaser begins, "Is Jesus God? Here is a picture of the life of Jesus Christ and why it's not blind faith to believe in him..." Hey, I've long said that if there is credible evidence for a god, I'll no longer be an atheist. (The question of worship is separate. First I need to know IF a god exists, before I can determine if it is holy.) So let's dive right in to all this not-just-blind-faith evidence!

It is impossible for us to know conclusively whether God exists and what He is like unless He takes the initiative and reveals Himself. We must scan the horizon of history to see if there is any clue to God's revelation. There is one clear clue. In an obscure village in Palestine, 2,000 years ago, a Child was born in a stable. Today the entire world is still celebrating the birth of Jesus.

So why doesn't he just reveal himself already? Also, the supposed virgin birth of Jesus (and all the other demi-god messiahs who came before him) in "an obscure village in Palestine, 2000 yearas ago" is hardly a "clear clue" of any god's existence, much less his/her/its revelation. Oh, and while most of the globe does celebrate the winter solstice, birth of Mithras, Saturnalia, or even Christmas in some incarnation of the holiday, that again isn't evidence of "God's revelation." I mean, how many people honestly worship Thor anymore, yet all across the English-speaking world, once a week we commemorate Thursday!*

The Life of Jesus - Is Jesus God?

He lived in obscurity until He was thirty, and then began a public ministry that lasted three years. It was destined to change the course of history. He was a kindly person and we're told that "the common people heard Him gladly." And, "He taught as One who had authority, and not as their teachers of the Law."

Lived in obscurity (like most people?) Check. Had a 'ministry' like millions of clergy, rabbis, witch doctors, shaman, "encouragers", prayer warriors, and cult leaders over the millenia? Check. Was he really "destined" to change history? That's an awful lot of question begging. For one thing, it presupposes destiny exists. Can we say Jesus did change the course of history? Again, I'm hesitant. I don't think Jesus on his own, without say Paul and Constantine and all those bloody popes, would have changed history. I think it is more accurate to say that the Story of Jesus has changed history (and whether or not this has been a beneficial change is another question entirely.)

It soon became apparent, however, that He was making shocking and startling statements about Himself. He began to identify Himself as far more than a remarkable teacher or prophet. He began to say clearly that He was God. He made His identity the focal point of His teaching. The all-important question He put to those who followed Him was, "Who do you say I am?" When Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God", Jesus was not shocked, nor did He rebuke Peter. On the contrary, He commended him!

Wow, and no one has ever claimed to be god before. I mean, that is like proof that Jesus was really god! Right? Oh no. Turns out LOTS of crazy men over the years have claimed they were god/god's son/god's messenger/the second coming/messiah/savior of all mankind. It's kind of a good schtick for cult leaders especially. Heck, Charles Manson claimed to be Jesus and Satan.

He made the claim explicitly, and His hearers got the full impact of His words. We are told, "The Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

On another occasion he said, "I and My Father are One." Immediately the Jews wanted to stone Him. He asked them for which good work they wanted to kill Him. They replied, "We are not stoning You for any of these but for blasphemy, because You, a mere man, claim to be God."

Entertain for the moment, if you please, the possibility that Jesus was no more the son of god than Simon of Paraea or Athronges, two other Jewish men Jesus' supposed age, who also claimed to be the messiah. If he was just a man, then weren't the Jewish leaders right to try to kill him for his blasphemy? After all, the first four out of ten commandments are all about Yahweh being a jealous, touchy sort of deity. He ordered stoning for everything from planting two seeds in the same furrow to not screaming loudly enough while being raped. Weren't they right to want to kill him, if he wasn't the son of god and he was claiming to be so?

The Life of Jesus - His Identity Revealed

When a paralyzed man was let down through the roof wanting to be healed by Him, He said, "Son, your sins are forgiven you." This caused a great to-do among the religious leaders, who said in their hearts, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Heh, while the Catholic Church certainnly seems to think they can "absolve" sins, so maybe this isn't such a big deal in today's modern world? Besides, faith healing is only impressive if you already believe it works, like fortune telling, ghost hunting, and homeopathy.

At the critical moment when His life was at stake, the high priest put the question to Him directly: "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"

"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy."

Just try to think for a moment if this wasn't some guy from 2,000 years ago, but someone today. Think about a guy who just starts walking around claiming to be god or the son of good, surrounded by slavish followers. You're likely to think this guy's a nut, and maybe evil or blasphemous, too. It's only because you've been told Jesus is the messiah - over and over and over again - that you find HIM to be the hero in this story. You say, "Well, it is so obvious he's the son of god. Why didn't they believe him?" in shocked Sunday School voices. But you have to understand, men throughout time have been believed to be gods. Jesus wasn't the first or the last, or the one with the most original story. Why do you believe this one?

So close was His connection with God that He equated a person's attitude to Himself with the person's attitude toward God. Thus, to know Him was to know God. To see Him was to see God. To believe in Him was to believe in God. To receive Him was to receive God. To hate Him was to hate God. And to honor Him was to honor God.

David Koresh claimed to be the son of god. Marshall Appelwhite claimed to be Jesus reincarnate. Muhammad Ahmad claimed to be the Mahti (something akin to the messiah or second coming in Islam.) They all claimed to BE god. Honoring them was honoring god. How is your Jesus any different?

Tomorrow we'll get into "The Life of Jesus - Four Possible Explanations" (think C.S. Lewis.) Glad to be back online and with all of you Anteaters!




* I remember once when I was very young, maybe only 4 or 5, my grandmother was deliberating whether she ought to teach us the "traditional" days of the week, or whether we ought to use a Hebrew calendar instead. I don't think she was considering it very seriously, but the fact that our days of the week are named for Roman and Norse gods genuinely concerned and offended her.

Read more!

God's Will vs. Your Plans

Hey everyone, I'm back in action in Denver, with my first Mountain Time counter-apologetic. From JustBetweenUs.org, yet another Christian womens magazine, we've got an article on "God's Will vs. Your Plans." (I love how their sales pitch for buying a friends subscription says, "Give the gift of encouragement." The audicity of Christian vendors who promise spiritual gifts in the form of merchandise brings to mind the money changers Jesus was so peeved at.) This particular article appears to have been written by a man, unless Stuart Briscoe is an unfortunately named woman.

Stuff happens. We all know that. Sometimes it’s good, other times it’s horrible. When it’s good we don’t spend too much time analyzing it – we just enjoy it! But when it’s bad we ask questions, we want answers. “Why did this happen?” Or more likely, “Why did this happen to me?”

We've come across this assumption in apologetics before - the idea that we are only aware of or concerned with our own pain. Speaking for myself (the only person I can freely & with some accuracy speak for) this simply isn't true. For as long as I can remember, I have ached for those who are homeless or overcome with illness (mental or physical) or for those who do not have enough food. There has never been a time in my life when I was not concerned about the fate of others - not just my own friends and family, but also relative and complete strangers. It does not take a tragedy in my own life for me to be aware that life is often unfair.

If we’re of a philosophical frame of mind, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” Some people shrug their shoulders and say, “Stuff happens and that’s all there is to it.” Others say, “You make your own life; you’re responsible for your own happenings.”

Others sound like victim-blaming jerks, don't they? When people take the "bootstrap" approach to life (the idea that, given sufficient effort, will, and determination, anyone can work their way to success) I believe they do it out of ignorance, and unnoticed privelige. I am white and live in the United States. There are certain things which are automatically granted to me - a certain degree of intelligence is assumed by professors, before I've opened my mouth. (In contrast, friends of color have told me they are often intially treated as less able than their white peers, until they have demonstrated otherwise.) I am a woman in America - there are certain automatic privileges I am not given because of this. I will likely make less money than men in the same field of work, at the same ability level. I will be villainized for enjoying sex, for speaking my mind, and for having opinions not in line with the majority. But all these *are* "bootstrap" situations to some degree. But when we look at people born into poverty, born HIV infected, born with no work available, no education, no proper medicine - we have a very different situation indeed. Some odds cannot be overcome. When we tell people their lives are of their own making, we ignore everything that impacts and informs their lives.

And then there are those who say “everything is determined.” Some say environment and genes are the determining factors while others say “God is sovereign and He dictates what happens.”

I'm not sure anyone says genes and environment "determine" things to the extent many Christians believe their god does. My genes and environment led to my mental illnesses. But how I respond to them has been affected by my choices - you know, that free will stuff Christians are so fond of. Yes, I think the kinds of choices, my ability for decision making, and my thought processes were all impacted by my genes and craptastic childhood environment. I often wonder who I could have been had I been born into a different family - not in a cult, maybe just mainstream Christian, or even in an atheist home. Who would I be? Whoever that theoretical person might be, I don't believe she'd be me in any important sense of the word. I don't believe in destiny.

It seems to me that the Bible is clear that God is in charge. If He isn’t, He isn’t God! But there is lots of biblical evidence that people are responsible for their actions, too. So I believe that God has chosen sovereignly to give us choice and related responsibility. Ultimately He is in control; but within the context of that control, He has granted us freedom to act. He is sovereign, we are responsible.

Wow, God's got a great set up - for him. Imagine getting to be the boss - be in control and sovereign over everything - but not having to take responsibility. Where do I sign up for that deal? On a pertinent note, Briscoe has stated clearly where he falls on the problem of evil (God won't fix it, rather than can't.) Clearly his god is an able one, and one who reigns supreme. However, Briscoe still tries to lay the blame on humanity. We'll see in the following to what lengths he'll go to maintain that an all-powerful, totally in control deity bears no responbility for the consequences of his actions and inactions.

But more. The environment in which He has chosen we should live is less than perfect. It is “fallen” and we are not exempt from its ills and its woes. So stuff happens in our lives under the sovereign control of the Lord who has intentionally given us free will and placed us in a difficult and dangerous environment.

Okay, so our author agrees that his god knowingly chose for us to live in a flawed or "fallen" environment, where natural disasters, disease, and human suffering are sure to follow. He's sovereign, yet we're responsible? Free will obviously plays no part in our environment, if God has willed it so. It's clearly his will, not ours. (Seriously, would you choose this world among all possible worlds, if you were really given such a choice? I think I'd pick a world without crib death and starvation, personally.)

Things come our way sometimes because we made them come our way.

Let's blame the victim! Christianity's favorite gameshow, fun for the whole family!

Sometimes they happen because of the fallen circumstances in which we live and from which we are made.

God's will, in other words.

Other times they happen because of the actions of others, but always under the ultimate oversight of God who rules in the affairs of men and women. God’s will rules!

So again, how are we responsible?

When Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane contemplating His imminent crucifixion, He asked if there was another way He could accomplish His mission, but then immediately told the Father, “Not My will, but Thine be done.” There was, in that moment, the most remarkable acceptance of the divine will in human history.

I've always wondered how it was that Jesus and God the Father could have such different wills at that moment. Aren't God and Jesus one in the same? And for that matter, if Jesus is divine, how on earth is his moment of self-sacrifice credited to human history? Either he's god (in which case, shouldn't he have the same will?) or he's human, and is therefore not god. You really can't have it both ways, Christians. The Trinity makes no sense, and this is just one passage that suggests why.

And it was not going to be pleasant. Jesus was willingly agreeing with the Father that His will was, as Paul would later say, “Good, acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12: 2). But it was a most horrendous will, a most excruciating plan.

Horrendous and excrutiating sound about right, but how can you recognize that while simultaneously calling it "good, acceptable, and perfect?" The idea that the Biblical god is the most loving father figure ever imagined or described is positively sickening. I grew up without my dad, and was adamant in not wanting my mother to remarry. We worshiped the god, mind you, who "tests" Abraham by asking him to slaughter his only child, the same god who supposedly sent his own son to be tortured and executed, the same god who flooded the whole earth, killing untold numbers of humans and animals because he got pissed off. Is it any wonder, when the primary image of a father I held was Yawhew, that I so strongly did not want one?

The question that then comes to mind is, “How can something so horrendous be good, acceptable and perfect?” This is not simply a theoretical question. Millions of believers have been faced with a similar one as they have confronted the difficult dimensions of life at the same time they were trying desperately to hold on to the belief that God’s will is best.

Well yes that question did come to mind, but for a different reason than the one supposed. I wondered at the logical consistency of god having a different will from himself.

When a young husband dies leaving a widow and three small children, how can that be part of a good, acceptable and perfect will? When a young couple desperately anxious to have children encounter infertility, how do they fit that into a good divine plan?

I was so upset when my godmother died. How could God be so selfish? She did so much for this world, and for all the people around her. How would her husband, her kids, and her grandkids (not to mention the rest of the community) be better off without her? She passed away four years ago, and I miss her still, but at least now I don't have to worship the being I believed was also responsible for subjecting her to three rounds of breast cancer, surgery, and chemotherapy.

Perhaps the only way we can hold firmly to a good will and confront unpleasant issues is to recognize that the only person who can ultimately determine the “goodness” or the “badness” of something is the person who has all the facts at his or her disposal. And none of us has that capability.

What he is essentially saying is that we have no basis from which to make value judgments, and that is absolute bollocks. Most of us, whether believers or nonbelievers, judge something which causes unnecessary suffering as being less desired than something which does not, all other points being equal. I realize this is a very simplistic way of stating basic morality, but we can and do make value judgments all day long. The idea that we shouldn't make such judgments is inherent to Christianity; after all, Adam and Eve were rousted from the garden for just learning right from wrong. Apparently Briscoe's god would rather we just blindly obey than analyze a situation ethically and rationally. "Don't question the leader," he tells us, in subtler prose.

There are certain things to which God has introduced us, and there are others that are hidden in the inscrutable depths of His divine plan. As Moses said, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deut. 29:29).

Is this why so many faithful feel threatened by science's continued encroachment on the mysterious? These things should be left to god?

We don’t know all He knows. We will never know this side of eternity what He doesn’t reveal; but we do know what He has told us, and we must tenaciously hold on to that.

I wonder if our author's tenancious hold on what "He has told us" means that Briscoe has never gotten a haircut, or eaten at Red Lobster. Somehow, I am skeptical (and not just because the Cheddar Bay biscuits are buttery yummy goodness.)

So suppose we can arrive at that position, how do we handle life’s unpleasantnesses or worse? Let me make a few suggestions:

Wait, the position that "sometimes things happen" or "life isn't fair?" Easy - become a nihilist, or a realist, or an atheist. (Note, only nihilism and Christianity require accepting things as they are without seeking to change them. Humanitarians know about the crises in our world, yet they don't accept that things must always be as they are.

1. Recognize that there is nothing fundamentally surprising about being exposed to bad things. Jesus was, and He warned His disciples they would be, too. He intentionally left us in a world that had rejected Him and He warned that we would be treated no differently.

And isn't that a strange thing for an all-knowing, all-powerful god to do? A warning seems like a rather paltry help from a god who's supposed to be in charge of absolutely everything.

Peter certainly got the message and later wrote, “Do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you” (1 Pet. 4:12). This is what life in this sad world is like – even for believers!

Well, I can agree that this is what the world is like, right now. But I don't buy into any sort of fatalism that the world will always be like this, or must. Furthermore, the kinds of trials and sufferings I might face are drastically different from what another person will. Being a teenaged American girl with anorexia is not the same as being a malnourished starving child in a third world country. We are not all created equal, nor are we born into equal conditions.

2. Remember that what God permits in your life will never outstrip the grace He makes available to enable you to live well in it. He doesn’t promise escape from difficulties, but He does guarantee grace to live well in them.

You wanna tell that to my friend whose two baby girls were born with rare, incurable forms of brain cancer?

Paul told the Corinthians, “God is faithful: He will not let you be tempted (or tested) beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide a way out so you can stand up under it” (1 Cor. 10:13).

Gee, well it's nice to know every Christian drug addict out there hasn't been given more than they can handle! Too bad there's no evidence of such a thing, but it is awfully nice to just sit back and wait for people to bootstrap themselves (with the aid of God, of course) out of their troubles. I mean, who needs charity when God doesn't give people more than they can handle on their own?

3. Reflect on the way that difficulties and stresses are often the means to development and growth.

Oooh, we're getting to one of my least favorite Christian Excuses for God's Negligence ever!

In the same way that an athlete is conditioned for better performance through carefully monitored training, so the believer is granted the chance to mature through the difficult dimensions of the divine will. Paul wrote, “we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope” (Rom. 5:4).

First of all, Yoda has a better illogical run than Paul, and that was in Episode One which *sucked*. Second, I wonder what on earth was the maturation and training my son received by having severe infant GERD (an incredibly painful recurrance of heartburn and difficulty digesting food) that left scars in his esophagous by the time he was 3 months old. How exactly was that a good thing for my son to go through? It brought him intense pain and did harm to his infant body, yet he experienced that as an infant, long before he could hold onto the memory or gain any kind of insight or benefit from that pain. Also, the twisted idea that suffering leads to hope is founded on ridiculous logic. Hope is found in the alleviation of suffering, in joy, in happiness, in love, in a beautiful sunrise at the start of a new day. Watching someone you love suffer does not bring hope, but it brings sadness and pain and often a feeling of impotence. Tell me, does your god find hope in watching all this suffering, despite his omnipotence?

The reason it really pisses me off, though, is because it lets god off the hook. Not only that, but it gives him credit for human achievements of will. How dare a Christian tell me my pain was all part of some god's plan, and that my own tenacity and refusal to be a victim is somehow evidence of HIS hand in my life? Whether your god exists or not, he did nothing to save me from the mental, emotional, sexual, and physical abuse I suffered at the hands of Christian folk for decades. He does not get credit for my survival; I do.

4. Refuse to be intimidated by the forces that oppose you in your life, and recognize that the way you conduct yourself in the hard times is evidence of God being truly at work in your life.

No! How you conduct yourself is evidence of YOU - your own actions, decisions, choices, stress techniques, addictions, predilictions, and ideas. I will hold my head up high in the face of adversity because of who I am, whether your god exists or not. He plays no role in my life.

It is also a reminder to those who may be the cause of your difficulties that they will not escape the consequences of their actions. Paul told the Philippians in no uncertain terms not to be “frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved – and that by God” (Phil. 1: 28).

Fright is a perfectly natural human response. The labeling of some emotions or impulses as black-and-white BAD is not helpful. I was forbidden to be afraid as a child; this didn't stop the fear, although it did make it impossible for me to work through my scared feelings with a reasonable, loving adult who could accept my full range of human emotions. And this isn't really helpful for the kinds of suffering and pain caused by natural disasters or disease. You know, the stuff God is totally in control of.

5. Resist the temptation to resent the hard edges of God’s will by acknowledging the fact that people “suffer according to God’s will” (1 Pet. 4:19) as surely as they are blessed by His gracious provision.

Don't resent it, because He doesn't want you to? The fact that it's all part of God's plan does not automatically yield that it would be a good plan, or one that would not be deserving of resentment.

In fact, in some way that is almost too difficult for us to grasp, if we are to know “the power of His resurrection” in our lives, it will be related to our experience of “the fellowship of sharing in His sufferings” (Phil. 3:10).

Ah yes, "the last shall be first" and all that. See, it's okay if children starve to death, or baby girls are raped by HIV positive men in sub-Saharran Africa, because (as long as our missionaries convert them during their short, ill lives filled with suffering and pain) they'll get the biggest mansions in heaven! (/sarcasm)

The Christians who lived in the difficult early days of the church grasped this perhaps better than modern-day Christians in the western world. They actually rejoiced after they were publicly flogged because they “had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name” (Acts 5:41).

And how many Muslim suicide-bombers have shouted, "Allah u'akbar!" (Allah is great!) moments before detonating themselves and all the people around them? Conviction of faith does not say anything of truth claims. Whether or not some early Christians got off on martyrdom has nothing to do with God's inaction in the face of natural disasters, rape, genocide, and all manner of human suffering.

When Jesus said in the Garden, “Not My will, but Thine be done,” He was not entering into a passive mode of resignation to inevitable circumstances. He was actively consenting to glad participation in the divine will.

I don't remember picking up "glad" in any of my readings of the Passion. Regardless, Jesus accepting the will of his father (who is himself) says nothing about whether or not God's plans are good.

We need to be careful at this point. For sometimes when we are exhorted, as in this article, to look positively at the difficult aspects of the divine will, we settle into an attitude rather like that of a rebellious teenager who chafes under parental discipline, and can’t do anything about it except project a constant attitude of disapproval of what she has to endure, and plays this one possibility to the hilt – technically submitting to the parental will, but realistically living in open, although muted, resistance to it and resentment of it.

Well it sounds like someone doesn't like teenagers a whole lot. I actively tell my son (who is a preschooler, and so falling into an earlier stage of separation from mommy's will) "You don't have to be happy about X" (going home from the playground, bathtime, whatever) "but you do have to hold mommy's hand and do this." I leave his emotions his own, and do not punish him for them. He is allowed to be angry, resentful, or disappointed in me. And because he has that freedom, when he does experience those emotions, he can tell me. We can talk about it, and work through it, and then he can begin to feel better. Just saying, "Don't resent pain you experience" denies someone the opportunity to work through that resentment, and reach something healthy beyond it. Short-circuitry in emotional health rarely yields the best results.

So try this. Next time God’s will and yours don’t see eye to eye, and before you get horribly bent out of shape, remind yourself that you don’t know all the circumstances so you can’t make a definitive assessment of the situation as to whether it is ultimately good or bad.

This is such bad advice. This is saying, "Don't fight the tide of your life." Don't get out of that abusive marriage; don't move so you can put your kids in a better school; don't look for the better job, certainly not after several unsuccessful interviews! It removes the impetus for human action; it is the opposite of the bootstrap. Try nothing, and call it God's will.

Then remember that God claims His will is “good, acceptable and perfect.” Give Him the benefit of the doubt and concentrate on the positive things that you know can come out of glad acceptance of His plan.

There are undoubtedly benefits to focusing on the positive aspects of life in tough situations; I do a lot of it. I suffer from depression and PTSD, as well as a few other mental illnesses. It's not a lot of fun, but I definitely try to make the most of it. That doesn't mean that it's better for me to have 5 mental illnesses than not. I think I'd personally prefer not to have these, as well as the assorted symptoms they carry. (Do night terrors sound like fun to you?) And as for giving God "the benefit of the doubt" it's really the benefit of belief Briscoe is specially pleading for. "Just trust that God is good and that everything will be okay." It is a lie, and I happen to believe that the vast majority of the time, the truth is preferable to a lie.

You may be surprised at the way life becomes less of a struggle and God’s will becomes less of a problem.

"Don't fight it, baby," said the rapist? I cannot see how the Christian god varies from such a beast in his totalitarian control and assumption of rights to everyone else's bodies and wills.

Why are all apologists so horribly victim-blaming? Because if they cannot blame us for our own suffering, they would have to blame their god, and they cannot do that. At least this one didn't spend all his time on Satan.

Read more!

Unpacking in Denver

Good to see you again, Anteaters. It's been a crazy couple of weeks, but the end result is that I'm sitting in bed in Denver while Viking plays video games and Kid is snuggled up beside me eating pizza in bed (and totally getting crumbs in it. That's what the little attachment on your vacuum is for people.)

The important point is that during the packing and unpacking mayhem (details which will follow in an upcoming post,) I stumbled across one of Kid's batpism gifts (as well as the certificate.) It's a book called "Prayers for My Child" with prayers and (super creepy) paintings by Ron DiCianni, although to be honest the majority of the book is blank spaces for parents to write in their own special prayers (because God needs things written down?) and quotes of *other* people about religion or prayer (or family life.)

Here's one that made me sorta queesy, attributed to Andrew Carnegie.

Give me the life of the boy whose mother is nurse, seamstress, washerwoman, cook, teacher; angel and saint, all in one, and whose father is guide, exemplar, and friend. No servants to come between. These are the boys who are born to the best fortune.

Whether or not these boys really are the most fortunate is debateable (and debated still today, in the ranks of the media-concocted "mommy wars.") My question is whether or not this is a good fortune for the mother. The mother's role described in this sentence has almost nothing to do with how I see myself as a mother. Teacher, yes, and friend, and role-model, and advocate. Also, notice how mom gets stuck with all the grunt work while dad gets to be the one who's admired? Yeah, it bugged me, too.

In a five paragraph long prayer (by the book's author) on "Childhood" are some of the most chilling phrases I've stumbled across in a children's book in ages. In a prayer to "Gracious Father" our parent asks,

Please help me to filter out all the negative stories I hear of what happens when children grow. It disturbs me to be assaulted by the fear of what could happen. I want to stay confident that your grace will be sufficient for each new day.

This is like a cross between FOX News style paranoia inducement and the Word of Faith teaching on "negative confessions" (simply saying or hearing a bad thing gives it power to manifest.) The combination of fear and no preperation is painfully remniscent of my childhood. As a parent, it's not pleasant to think of pedophiles, drunk driving accidents, or teen pregnancy, but it is my JOB. Surely it matters more that I teach my son no one is allowed to abuse his body, than it matters if we tend to eat sandwhiches, pizza, and frozen dinners. So what solution to the upsetting problems does our praying parent prefer? Why, more prayer of course!

I ask that You would watch out for my child in the running, playing, and learning of everyday. (Hell, it's gotta be easier to let God watch out for your kid than to do it yourself!) Be Guardian, Protector, and dearest Friend. I ask that You cover this child with Your wings. May this bew the beginning of the realization, for both of us, that you are our real parent.

Wha-at? Lady, God is imaginary and even if you do abdicate your role as guardian, protector, and friend to your child, that doesn't mean "He's" going to jump in to take over. I wish someone had told my mom that.

Four years ago when I got this book, I thought it was pretty. I never filled it out because, uh, premade scrapbooks are kind of horribly cheesy and just not my thing. (I won't devote the effort to make it look good, so it just looks like a C+ art project, from back when elementary schools could still afford art programs.) Still, it's kind of amazing how far I've shifted from slavish maternity to ... wanting to be a complete person for my son, not just a role of duties and responsibilities and (yuck) housework.

Speaking of housework... Lots to do! I promise a more coherent post soon.

Read more!