Not True

How far can we take the “No True Scotsman” claim? Can we extrapolate it out, to the absurd point in which we can claim the other person does not even qualify as a human?

We all know and most have seen the claim in one form or another, of the “No True Scotsman.” Most commonly used as “You weren’t a true Christian in the first place.” Briefly, it is a claim that, a person was NOT part of a group, even though they claimed to have been, because it is important to the person making the claim.

For example, I may want to insist that Joe is not from Michigan. Joe claims to be from Michigan. Joe has documentation to prove he is from Michigan. But when I ask, “Where did you live?” and he replies, “Ann Arbor” I scream out “A-HA! ‘True’ Michiganders use their hand as a map, and point out their location. Since you did not use your hand, you are not a ‘True Michigander.’ I do not care about your paperwork, or even if you actually lived within the boundaries of the state. You do not qualify.”

We, of course here it as in “You were not a True Christian.” Or those that performed the Inquisition were not “True Christians.” Or any person that Christians do not want to be associated with, are disbarred from the group, since they were not “True Christians.”

I can understand the reasoning behind this. First, because it may conflict with a person’s beliefs. If they believe once saved, always saved, they cannot have people being Christians and then not being Christians. Or if they believe faith is demonstrated by works, they cannot have murderers and torturers qualifying.

Second, because if we allow anyone to claim to be a Christian, the word becomes so diluted that it would effectively have no meaning. Of course, we have the perennial problem of who gets to define “Christian” so as to use it correctly. That is still a toss-up.

And Christians aren’t solely to blame. If somone claims to have been an atheist-turned-Christian, and I learn they had no idea of any of the arguments against God(s), or how the Bible came into being, I choke back the “No true atheist” fallacy. I have had to learn to take people at their word. Yes, they really were an atheist.

Or if someone told me they were an atheist, yet believed in a God that only interacted on occasion, the thought, “not an atheist” would certainly cross my mind. There are a few ways to approach this fallacy:

“I was a Christian”

A) “No you weren’t.”

The problem with this approach is that we have immediately created a hostile environment. This implies I am at the least deluded, at the most dishonest. Further, the person saying this to me loses credibility, as they are making a statement that I am very aware is untrue. Yes, I was a Christian. So not only does it increase hostility, it loses one’s credibility. Why use it?

B) “From my perspective, I don’t see how you could have been a Christian. Can you explain what being a Christian meant to you?”

Notice the difference? See the dialogue opening up? Maybe we could reach some understanding whereby I see why you wouldn’t claim I was a Christian, and you would understand why I claim I was. We may not agree, but at least we learn something without losing credibility.

For those reasons, I never became too involved in the problem of the “No True Scotsman.” Never gave it much thought. Used against me, I ignore it. I didn’t use it on others.

Until I recently read a “No true Calvinist” claim. Not only can a person claim another was never a Christian, they can claim they were never a certain type of Christian. If one isn’t dipped, we can use the “No true Baptist.” If one isn’t confirmed, the “No true Catholic.”

But why stop there? If one doesn’t conform to the right 66 Books, one is not a “True Biblist.” If one questions (or perhaps does not) the Pericope Adultera one is not a “True Gospel of Johnist.” If one does not hold to the correct theory of the development of Matthew, Mark and Luke, one is not a “True Synopticist.”

It reduces to a level of lunacy!

Where are these definitions? Is there some diamond-encrusted golden cornerstone of the Universe that lists the “true” definitions of every word, so we can peer into a telescope and determine who qualifies for what? Of course not! Definitions are just common usages of words. What was “cool” in 1800 is much different than “cool” in 2006. What was “gay” in the 1920’s is not what is “gay” in the 1980’s.

The dictionary is not some absolute truth, by which we must conform in order to be correct or not. By using a word in a different way, over time we can change the definition of that word. Just because a word has religious implications, does not imbibe it with properties by which it becomes a one-time absolute meaning.

Who defines, “Christian”? Many would say “God.” But where? In the Bible? This raises questions as well. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, and he who does not believe will be condemned.” We could choose this as a bright-line definition of Christian/non-Christian. The problem? Jesus goes on to further define “believes” as being a person that casts out demons, drinks poison, handles snakes and heals. Is that also included in our definition of Christian? What if we only do 3 out of 4? Worse, this is in the long ending of Mark, so a “No true Markist” that believes the ending is not inspired would say this is “No True Definition” of a “No True Christian.”

Is it one that God has predestined? One that never sins? One that never lies? All are possible definitions, depending on what verse in the Bible one uses. Is it all, some, none?

I suggest we all drop any such statement. It doesn’t progress the conversation a bit. It only creates hostility. It only loses credibility.

Mission Control - we have a problem

Yesterday, I was traveling in rush-hour traffic behind a car with a bumper sticker that read, “Don’t worry – God is in Control.” And as we crawled along we passed a fender-bender, pulled over to the side of the road. I couldn’t help wondering if God was in control of that!

What if it wasn’t just a ding in some metal? What if it was a pile-up, with hurt people, and severe, life-altering injuries? Would God still be in control of that?

How much is God actually in control? Does He care as to who is elected President of the United States, or Prime Minister of Great Britain, and get actively involved in politics? Does He monitor the finances of Christian corporations, to prevent embezzlement?

One of the catch-all excuses for why the world is the way it is, is the claim that God holds Free Will as the highest precept. The reason we even have a hell, is that God does not want to interfere too much, thus eliminating faith. He needs free will to reign supreme. It is over love, over communication, over evil, sickness, disease and death.

Why did God even have that awful tree in the Garden of Eden? To give Adam & Eve Free will. Why do we have the problem of natural evil, such as tsunamis? Because, in order to protect free will, God must allow such events to happen. Time and time and time again, I am assured by the theist that the reason God won’t communicate directly with me, is that it will somehow impinge on my free will.

But as God is in control, doesn’t He impinge on Free will all the time? Theists that pray actually hope that God will force his way into a life, and set aside their Free will. Think of the simple prayer, “God, help the doctors that do this surgery. Guide their hands. Give them strength, and wisdom to perform their work. Amen.” How many 1000’s of times have I heard that prayer!

Yet the theist is directly asking God to impose himself on the doctor’s free will. That doctor has the ability and freedom to slip with the scalpel, cutting too much, or not admitting the surgery is beyond his capabilities, or perhaps not getting enough sleep the night before. What the theist is asking is for God to set aside the doctor’s free will, preventing the knife from slipping too far, giving him a quick kick in the seat of the pants to wake him up.

Deists, of course, don’t have this problem, but most brands of theism have their God intervening all the time, crushing free will. The story of the tower of Babel is a great example. Humans had the free will to communicate in one language. God couldn’t have that, so he stepped in and deliberately caused confusion.

In order to take blame away from God (who is in Control) and impose it upon humans, the free will excuse will be employed. But if a person starts to worry that free will may eliminate their brand of theism, the God is in control excuse is brought out. It is the best of both worlds. However, a pattern comes forward that becomes suspect.

As we watch these arguments unfold, amazingly free will is always, always, always happening just at the moment it is most convenient for the theist’s position. When we inspect why God would let children die, free will is handy to let the children stay dead, and keep God from being implicated. God didn’t want it that way, it just had to be, to protect free will. When we attempt to use reason to investigate God, free will becomes most inconvenient, and God’s sovereignty is brought out. Who are we to question a God?

Yet this is unconvincing to an atheist. Why? Because we realize the theist is in no better position to determine what is free will and what is God-controlled. And by constantly defending God in the most favorable light, the theist’s credibility is compromised as being biased. No theist is going to state, ever, “There you got me. God shouldn’t have imposed his will against the humans in that situation.”

Look at this minor automobile collision. Was it just God, letting two drivers use their free will? Or was it God, attempting to have two drivers meet, so that they could show love toward each other? Was God preventing a much more tragic accident? Or was God sending a message to other drivers in the area? Or did God, not caring, never even know about the accident? Was he in control, or was it free will?

There simply is no way to determine this.

I can read all the fancy philosophical arguments on whether humans have free will or not. I can read them on whether God has free will or not. The one thing I do not read is a method by which we can determine, “Here God is restricting free will and here he is not.” And if we cannot determine it on any occasions, how can we say He ever does, or never does?

What would a world look like, if God sat back and never interacted at all? What would a world look like if God interacted at every decision, no matter how slight? As we have no basis of comparison, either prospect is a guess. I, obviously, think the world would look like it does without God’s interaction, but a theist would equally obviously disagree. O.K., but with this “sometimes in, sometimes out” theory, we are left with pure speculation.

If God is in control, then why do people get traffic tickets? Can’t they state that God is the one that was driving at the time?

Story or History?

Have you noticed how in stories, the characters can “pop in” at convenient times, and convenient places, at the will of the author? If they need Aunt Maude to appear at Sunday dinner, in order to propel the story along, she is written in. We don’t question as to how she got there, or why, as we understand that this character is necessary to the story and therefore at this moment, she will appear.

In fact, we chuckle a bit at Star Trek fans (such as myself) who argue over incongruous events in differing installments. “In Episode #27 they turned left from the Captain’s office to go to the engine room, but in Episode #83 they turned right. Which is it?” The reason we laugh, is that we know it is just a story. These aren’t factual events. These are television shows, penned by Hollywood writers who have no intention of keeping the facts congruent, as they aren’t facts—they are stories. To argue over the validity of the “facts” of these fictions would be silly.

One of the questions that continually perpetuates throughout discussions of the events of the First Century in Palestine, as recorded in the Bible, is how much is fact, and how much is fiction. Now, one may take the position that if it is recorded, it is absolutely positively, no questions asked a historical event. But is this argument convincing? If someone was coming across the events, as written, for the first time, would they be persuaded that it is a story, or that it actually happened that way?

One of the events that has all the elements of a story and not an actual happening, is the moving of all eleven disciples, and Jesus’ entire family from Galilee to Jerusalem overnight. It was done to make the story convenient, out of a desire to move the story along, rather than out of any historical basis.

First of all, it is to be noted that Jesus’ base of operations was in Galilee. (Mr. 1:28) It was here that he did miracles, preached, traveled and talked to crowds. But most importantly, it was from here that he chose his Disciples.

Every disciple was from Galilee. (Acts 2:7) They had wives (Mr. 1:30), jobs (Mr. 1:18), families (Mr. 1:19) and even homes (Mr. 2:15). In a word—roots. This is where, if things went wrong, they would go first.

For a year or three, they travel with Jesus, both in Galilee, and out, and we can fast forward to the night of the Last Supper. After eating, all but Judas (off betraying), go to the Mount of Olives. Jesus explains that he is about to die, and says that after He is resurrected, he will “Go before you to Galilee.” Mt. 26:32. This is most natural. Jesus recognizes that they are about to be scattered, and their most natural retreat would be home—Galilee.

Jesus’ mother and two of the Disciples mother still live in Galilee at this time, because it is noted they came from there to see Jesus die. Mr. 15:41. When the women go to visit the tomb, they find a young man there, who again confirms exactly what we expect, exactly what was said, “Go tell the disciples Jesus will meet you in Galilee.” (Mr. 16:8)

Exactly as they were told, exactly as suspected, Jesus meets the disciples in Galilee. Mt. 28:16. According to John, the Disciples hung around the room for eight days (John 20:26) but after that, met Jesus right where we expected—Galilee. (John 21:1) (Yes, I am aware of the added ending of John 21. So which one is the inspired version? Chap. 20, where we leave the disciples 8 days post resurrection in Jerusalem, or Chap 21, where Jesus rehabilitates Peter? If one wants them in Jerusalem, the only way to do so, is place Chap. 21 chronologically before Chap. 20. Why, then, are they reversed? Good study.)

At this point we see what we would humanly, naturally expect. Jesus and his Disciples’ base is in Galilee. The crowd is unfriendly in Jerusalem. The obvious point of retreat is Galilee. Or look at it this way. Assuming the Jesus movement is dead. Kaput. Jesus died and wasn’t resurrected, where do the disciples go? Back to their jobs. Back to their families and homes. Back to the lives they had before. Sure, one or two may continue the farce, but not all eleven. They would go home.

Or, if they are convinced by seeing a resurrected Jesus, both in Jerusalem, but later in Galilee, what better place to start the movement than at home? These are the people that saw Jesus’ miracles, heard his preaching, know the disciples personally. Even today, when people are converted, who are the first they attempt to win over? Their friends and family! The most natural place in the world for the disciples to start this church movement is in Galilee. Home.

Up until now, everything seems fine. There is only one catch. Luke wants to be a historian. And what Luke knows about the history of the church is that it started in Jerusalem. (Acts 2:1-7) Peter was from Jerusalem. (Gal. 1:18) Jesus’ brother is from Jerusalem. (Gal. 1:19) In fact, all of the apostles were staying in Jerusalem. (Acts 1:13)

The Church grows in Jerusalem. (Acts 6:7). Every indication Luke has before him is that the church’s earliest leaders are from Jerusalem. How in the blue blazes can he rectify the problem that the legends say these were people from Galilee, yet the church clearly began in Jerusalem?

Just like any storyteller, Luke moves the entire group to a place he wants them without necessity of providing a reason. All eleven disciples and Jesus family (Acts 1:14), move, en masse to Jerusalem, in less than a month, with nary a thought of Galilee again. But does it make sense?

To give an idea of the complete abandonment of Galilee, the word “Galilee” or “Galilean” is mentioned 60 times in the four Gospels. True, some are descriptions of persons, such as Herod being tetrarch of Galilee (Lk. 31:1), but most of these are mentions of people from Galilee, or persons active in Galilee. In the whole rest of the New Testament, “Galilee” or “Galilean” is only mentioned another 9 times. It is as if it dropped off the face of the earth!

Or, perhaps another way of looking at it. Luke has the initial preaching, and growth of the Church in Jerusalem. (Acts 6:7) One of the most obvious initial outreaches would be Galilee, for all of the reasons stated—friends, family and familiarity. So is this where they go? Nope, instead, as the persecution began they start sending Christians out to Judea and Samaria. The apostles stay in Jerusalem. Acts 8:1. Not a single apostle is concerned about his family back home in Galilee? No one says, “Hey, why don’t I go back to Galilee and ride this thing out?”

They send Christians everywhere but Galilee! In fact, when Samaria gets the Word, the disciples are more than happy to send Paul and John to them. (Acts 8:14) Peter and John have no problem preaching throughout Samaria, but somehow their own region is completely missed. (Acts 8:25)

Finally, Paul becomes a Christian, and begins contending with Hellenists. It is only after Paul is converted, and begins his missionary work, that we finally learn of churches in Galilee. (Acts 9:31) Paul is more interested in converting the disciples’ family than the disciples were!

Paul, in his writing, has no notion of a Galilee, or teaching there. He talks of meeting the church the church leaders in Jerusalem, and ministering to the saints in Jerusalem. (Romans 15). Mark, writing the first Gospel, leaves us hanging with Jesus intending to be in Galilee, but the disciples never getting the word. Matthew, following Mark, leaves the disciples in Galilee. As well as John.

Luke is conflicted by the legend that places everyone from Galilee, and the history (as he knows it) that they were from Jerusalem. Simple solution—have them move. But why? Shouldn’t there be some continuity for the move? And Luke creates one.

As John did, after the death of Jesus, Luke leaves the disciples in the city of Jerusalem. (Lk. 24:33) When Jesus makes his starling appearance, he adds a phrase that isn’t found in the other gospels: “Stay in the city of Jerusalem until you receive the power from on high.” (Lk 24:29) There. He did it. Like a masterful weaving of tales, Luke has forced the move from Galilee to Jerusalem. Luke assumes Jesus family will only naturally follow the disciples.

In a story, this works very, very well. In reality, this raises questions. How easy would it be for Eleven men, as well as Mary and her other sons to ALL move. Not most. Not some. But every single one. First Century Palestine was primarily an agricultural society, with the farmers making only enough to live on. They were taxed/tithed at about a third. This would include wages, produce, spices, everything.

The cities lived off of these lands, the wealthy landowners being absentee landlords, having what excess was provided shipped to the city. A situation where the cities were parasitically living off the country. Any disciples that were fisherman would be out of a job. At best, they could hope to find labor work, but such work was primarily in farms—back in the country. How could they manage to obtain food to eat? Or rent a room for shelter?

Did they institute offerings as payment for their services? There are subtle hints to that effect at Acts 4:37 and Acts 6:3-4. This opens Pandora’s box, though, as it could remove the motivation factor of “Did they die for a lie?” No, they died because they needed the income, and were too much competition for the temple cult.

And how does Luke’s phrase “stay in the city” work in connection with the other gospels? It was said, while they were still startled to see Jesus. So, presumably, it was done before they saw him again (and again) in Galilee. Jesus says, “I will see you in Galilee” so, according to Luke, they stay in Jerusalem. Jesus says, “Stay in the city” so they go running off to Galilee. Jesus says, “You will be witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria” so they stay in Jerusalem, sending everyone else to Judea and Samaria. It is like it is opposite world—whatever Jesus says, they do the exact opposite!

There is no reason for the church to begin in Jerusalem. Jesus drew crowds out to Galilee. There is no temple requirement in Jesus’ religion. (Although curiously enough, they continued to go to the temple.) It was intended to be a missionary work, and its base of operations could be anywhere. In fact, where better than Jesus’ childhood home?

Jesus’ tomb was not venerated. The location of his death not visited. There was nothing keeping the disciples in Jerusalem. Just the pesky fact that Luke had to work with—that the church started with people in Jerusalem, and Luke had to move ‘em there.

Do Christians just shrug this off, saying, “If the Bible says it happened, it happened” or do they think this through, saying, “This does seem a bit odd”?

Wadda ya know?

A common argument is made, and I have seen it a few times recently, that with all the information we don’t know about the universe, how can the atheist rely upon what little we do know to say there isn’t a god?

It usually looks something like this: “Think about all the information there ever was about the universe. How much does the smartest person in the world know about the universe? 10%? 5%? It seems likely, realizing there are 100 billion galaxies with 100 billions stars that we know less than 1% of the total knowledge there is about the universe. Isn’t it possible that within the 99% that we don’t know, a god exists? An atheist is relying just as much on faith as a theist by relying upon 1% to say what is true about the other 99%”

Of course there are minor variations on this argument, “how can you rely upon finite knowledge when humans have been shown to be wrong,” etc. There are numerous problems with this.

Let’s all be agnostic Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the theist really believed that we should not make positive (or negative) assertions about the universe until we have more than 1% of knowledge, then they also cannot make the positive assertion there is a God. If it is possible within the other 99% there is a God, it is equally possible there is not a God.

Why stop there? It is equally possible there are more than one gods, and more than one universe. In fact, with our limited capability, we should refrain from making any claims about anything, until we know more. Clearly, the theist does not hold to this proposition for their own position, why, then, impose it on others?

Look at what we do know Within our little 1%, we know that the Easter Bunny is made up by humans. Doesn’t exist. We know that Santa Clause is made up. Doesn’t exist. We know that severed arms do not re-attach and, with the wave of a wand and a few magic words, start functioning normally.

With what we do know, we can make assertive statements, regardless what the other 99% consists of. If there is a supernova exploding on the other side of the universe, does it make a difference whether it is going blue or red, as to whether there is a god? Nope. Since that is part of the 99% I don’t know, it does not provide any new information as to God’s existence, so who cares if we don’t know it?

Or, look at it this way. I am sure I know less than 1% of American History. When we look at all the facts of all the things that have happened in America over the last 400 years, I am certain I know less than 1% of 1%! Yet even with this miniscule knowledge, I am aware that Daffy Duck was never President of the United States. Can we say, “A-ha! You don’t know 99% of American History, therefore you cannot know this?” Of course not. The minute amount I do know lists the Presidents that have been elected, and Daffy Duck is not one of them.

What is interesting is that the theist will often point out what they don’t know, and therefore claim they do know there is a god. This hardly makes sense. “Within the 99% of what we don’t know is how, exactly life formed on earth, whether there is life elsewhere, what existed prior to the Big Bang, how much dark matter there, and therefore within the 1% of what I do know, I will claim there is a god. One we don’t know 99% about.”

If the theist is able, within ,their 1% of knowledge declare there is a god, why am I prohibited from using the same knowledge and saying there is not? Why must I have to wait for the other 99%, and they do not?

Further, the “limitation” of human knowledge is what we have to work with. Even if there was a supernatural being, the only way that we as humans can know it, is by our own knowledge—i.e. human. This presumes there is something “other” than human knowledge, which is a bit silly, considering the only way to discuss it, or even conceive of it, is by discussing with other humans, and interacting with their knowledge.

Guess what? Every single thing we know is confined within human knowledge. There isn’t anything beyond it. The instant one starts to talk about some knowledge “beyond it” it becomes part of human knowledge!

What happens when knowledge increases? We weren’t always at 1%, or whatever number one wants to put on it. We used to be less. As knowledge of the universe and the world about us has increased, we have modified what we can theorize and surmise about the other 99%. At one time, within our little amount, we did not know that light had a speed, acted as a wave and a particle, and can be moved by gravity. As we learn these new facts, we modify our information about what the other 99% looks like.

In fact, part of what little we know, is that Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which states we cannot state at a moment in time, the exact nature of the universe. The more certain we are as to the direction of a moving particle, the less certain the speed, and vice versa. We can never know 100%, by the very limitations as to how we can observe the universe.

While our little bits of knowledge increase, we are able to modify and reduce the possibilities of what the other 99% is like. Is theism equally willing to change?

Upon learning through textual and higher criticism that the works of the Bible were not accurately copied and recorded, is theism willing to modify its belief regarding canonization and inerrancy. Upon learning that the earth is billions of years old, and was not made in spurts and spats, is theism willing to embrace evolution?

See, within the naturalist 1% of knowledge is the ability and recognition to modify its understanding of the other 99%. If a person began to regularly perform miracles, won the Randi challenge, and exhibited unexplained supernatural phenomena, every naturalist I know would be willing to abandon their 1% naturalistic ideal, and study the new, supernatural concept. But a theist, with their 1% of knowledge, only rarely will view facts and reason, and modify their beliefs, to the point of becoming a naturalist.

Theism fails to provide for any ability to modify its belief.

Faith So is each claim, “no god” vs “a god” a matter of faith? That somewhere out there in the other 99%, whatever a person happens to believe, may be confirmed, but in the meantime both parties are relying upon unsubstantiated assertions?

Here is the problem with that. Other than pantheists, the theist has made a non-faith based determination. They have eliminated, as possibilities, other deities as even remotely being possible in the other 99%. In the same way that a theist says, “Isn’t it possible there is a god, because of what you don’t know?” I could say, “Isn’t it possible there is a different god than the one you subscribe to, because of what you don’t know?”

Within this small scope of knowledge, the theist uses reason to eliminate all other god(s) except the one they hold onto. Can they do that, and yet claim I cannot, because of the vast unknown? What they are saying is two contradictory statements: “Within the 1% that we know, we do know that this god, and that god, and those gods, and these gods cannot possibly exist. You, the atheist, cannot say that god’s don’t possibly exist.” Yes, I can. I apply the same method the theist does to their god, with the same limitation of knowledge, and poof—there is no proof.

“We don’t know” does not equal the possibility of a God.

Eeny Meeny Miny Mo

I have been informed (more than once) that once my death is upon me, I will revert back the Christianity. I have thought on this…

Of course it is impossible to actually place oneself in this situation, unless you really have lived it. I have not. I do not know what my emotions will be like, my reasoning, my thought process, upon learning that I will die. I could certainly see how, at that moment, an afterlife would be very attractive.

As best I can, I imagined the cliché of “The doctor informs you, that you only have two months to live.” What would I do? What would I think? Who I turn back to Christianity, in the hopes of a perpetuality? In the hopes of seeing those I love again?

Frankly, my first thought would be, “I better get this right, since I only have a short time to figure it out!” It would be tempting to pick the religion that has the best heaven. One that I would enjoy, and would hope those about me enjoyed as well. In a selfish fit, it would be really tempting to pick the one with the worst hell. This way I could be certain that, even if wrong, I was not in the worst possible hell there is. I could breathe a sigh of relief, knowing somewhere out there is a worse hell.

But I would think what most would compel me is to pick the “right” one. Again, I don’t have a lot of time to do this, really only have one shot at it. Need to take the best possible shot there is at it.

I was born into Christianity. It was “correct” because it claimed to be correct, and it claimed to be exclusive, therefore by definition, all of the other religions are “incorrect.” Easy as pie. Now, outside Christianity, I see that it claims to be right and exclusive, but a variety of other theistic beliefs also claim to be right and exclusive. In fact, MOST theistic beliefs, by virtue of their defined god(s) exclude the possibilities of other god(s), and therefore cannot both be correct. One cannot hold to a deistic, impersonal god, and an interactive personal god at the same time. They exclude each other.

Being outside of any religion, I have to pick them on their merits alone. Just because I am told, “Over here! Over here! Pick me, and I will exclude the others” doesn’t help me one bit, because to the left of that religion is another, shouting, “No, pick ME!” and to the left of that religion, another shouting, “No, I am right!” and another and another. Guess what? You all claim to have the “in” on God, and the others are on the “out.” I don’t have time for that nonsense—I only have two months to get it right.

Now I only have time to look at the merits of the viability (there’s that word again!) of each religion as it stands or falls on its own. Christianity would be out. I know too much. I have studied too far to convince myself in the facts of that religion. And if I couldn’t convince myself, there is no way I could convince a God. In fact, having studied the basis of Christianity, all of the Abrahamic God(s) would get the boot. That God surely does not exist. No time can be wasted there.

But what about reincarnation? Hinduism? Taoism? Some African religion I haven’t even discovered yet? I don’t have the time to start investigating each and every one. And, from my philosophical study, and study of evolution, and study of how humans are so good at creating god(s), I would be skeptical of almost every theism there is.

I might see a selling point of a deistic force that started the universe in a mistaken belch, and has long since forgotten its faux pas. But what good does it do me to start believing that for the last two months of my life? I haven’t believed it before and there is no after-life there!

The safest bet, would be continuing to be convinced by the evidence I have before me, that there is no God, and continuing to exist in that manner. It’s like finding out that I only have 10 minutes to complete a test. No sense wasting it going over the answers I had written previously. Just because I thought I had 2 hours, and now I only have 10 minutes doesn’t mean to change the previous answers.

No, I don’t see me reverting back to Christianity, simply because time becomes more limited. Religions need to learn to rise or fall on their own, not just to “hedge a bet.”

It's Not Like It's a Law

The question was raised--why I stated:

“Christianity felt the only way it could demonstrate its viability, was not though good works, not by demonstrating love, not by loving one’s neighbor, but by passing legislation.”

How can I say that? Because actions speak louder than words. Christians don’t show the viability of their belief by practicing them, they attempt to show them by passing laws about plaques and prayers. Look, if you don’t believe them in practice, why should I?

By ”viable” I mean relevant, actual, capable of success or continuing effectiveness, practicable. If someone tells me a method that is effective to implement a goal, it is exactly that—a successful way to reach the ends desired.

It is similar to someone telling me they have the best instructions to build a doghouse. Instructions that resulted in the winningest Doghouse ever made. And then they go and build a dog house completely different than these instructions. Do they really believe these are the best instructions? Naw.

What does the Bible say about determining the “viability” of Christianity? (I have no hesitation in looking at the Bible. While it is of human manufacture, Christians assure me that this is the basis of their belief. That their “absolute” morality is based therein. If I am told that is where to find Christianity—that is where I will look.)

Love Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to quickly figure out what the distinguishing characteristic of a Christian must be: Love for others, and following God’s commands.

“All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another.” John 13:35

“We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, ‘I know him,’ but does not do what he commands is a liar and the truth is not in him.” 1 John 2:3-4

“Whoever loves his brother lives in the light…” 1 John 2:10

“Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers.” 1 John 3:13-14

“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? 1 John 3:17 (ouch.)

“And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. Those how obey his commands live in him, and he in them.” 1 John 3:23

“Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” 1 John 4:7-8.

That seems pretty clear. If you are Christian, you love and obey God’s commands. If you don’t—you aren’t. Want to look at some of God’s commands? Sure!

“If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.” Luke 6:29-30

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” Matt. 5:44

“If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 1 Tim. 5:8

“If we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap…for the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” 1 Tim. 6:8-10.

“Do not worry, saying ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’” Matt. 6:31

“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin….” James 2:8

There is more, of course, by why point it out? You want to show the world the viability of Christianity? Start acting like Christians! It is hard for us to buy that you believe this stuff, when we see you living in million dollar houses, generating college funds for your children and driving new SUV’s. Oh, we do too, but we aren’t claiming the Bible as the absolute moral authority. You are.

We aren’t the ones mandating that Christians must do such-and-such, and act in a certain way. Your Bible is. We are the ones reading it, and seeing that you have no interest in following its mandates either. If you aren’t interested, why should we be? More importantly, why should we have to follow some of your rules, if you aren’t?

I see an Americanization of Christianity. As if rights generated by the Constitution and subsequent case law, somehow become “Christian” rights.

“We have a RIGHT to place the Ten Commandments on a plaque.” Give me a break. Can you point out this “right” in your Bible? “For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil: live as servants of God.” 1 Pet. 2:15-16

Want to put non-believers in their place? Shut them up, as it were? Stop whining about monuments and rights, and start acting out the Ten Commandments!

You aren’t being oppressed by a prohibition of a plaque. Even if you were, you should be thankful for it. “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know the testing of your faith develops perseverance.” James 1:2-3

As I have said before, and will say again. These are legislative acts that do not cost the Christian anything. What is a plaque? A prayer before a football game? Christians will scream out that their “rights” (where are those rights found in the Bible, again?) are being violated by not getting these things, but become silent when we point out their complete lack of Love for fellow human beings. Where is the outpouring of money to homeless shelters? Help for pregnant teenagers? Counseling for those in need? Support for neighbors?

Are Christians seriously saying that their lives are more fulfilled if a homeless person dies under a Plaque that reads, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me”?

Christians don’t want to show the viability of Christianity as required in the Bible. That is too much. Oh, they will read these words, or hear them in a sermon, and nod their head, thinking, “Yeah, I need to do that more,” and then drive off in their new cars, worried about whether to go out to eat at a restaurant, or eat steak at home. That afternoon will be filled with clothes shopping, as this year’s fashions just came out.

I would love to see a story come out of Missouri that claims Medicaid and Medicare have ceased being necessary in that state, as the Christians have begun to demonstrate that Christianity is relevant. Real. Viable. That the health care system has been reformed, as Christians no longer need health care, now that James 5:13-15 and Mark16:18 have become actual to the Christians. That all the women have sold their gold, and pearls to help fund this endeavor. That abortions have dropped to nothing, because Christians are more than willing to adopt, raise and support children that are unwanted.

Is that what we see? Nope. What we see, is “We have a majority that believe in a God” (although what that “God” is remains vague) “so we will pass legislation. We have a right.” Why do I say that this is the only way Christians demonstrate the viability of Christianity? Because, as a whole, it is all Christians do!

(There a few, and far in-between exemptions. Curiously, those that are, seem to be the least interested in passing legislation, and would agree with me that it is ridiculous.)

So I started looking in the Bible about “passing legislation.” The Book is contradictory enough—wouldn’t surprise me if somewhere there is a statement that Christians must be actively involved in passing laws about plaques and prayers. What I found wasn’t very complimentary:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices…but you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.” Mt. 23:23

“Do not do what they do…Everything they do is done for men to see…they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important eats in the synagogues.” Mt. 23:3-6

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside fo the cup and dish, but inside are full of greed and self-indulgence.” Mat. 23:25

“Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!..on the outside you appear to people as righteous, but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.” Mat. 23:27-28

Jesus wasn’t too thrilled with people who passed laws, rather than practiced love. Does anyone really think that Jesus would be petitioning for this law to be passed, or would he be simply demonstrating love by working in the community?

Ever read Otto Koenig’s The Pineapple Story? He was a missionary in New Guinea when he decided to grow pineapples. He tells of the hard work, and labor put into the planting and tending to these plants, and waiting for three years before the first crop.

But the villagers stole them all before he could eat one! He began to impose his “rights” by placing signs, putting up fences, and preaching on the ills of stealing. None of it did any good, they kept stealing his pineapples. He became angrier and angrier, and finally obtained two mean dogs.

This kept the people out of his pineapples, but they also wouldn’t come visit him anymore because they were afraid of these dogs. At least his “rights” were secure. On furlough, he realized that because of imposing his “rights” he was losing his effectiveness as a missionary. Upon returning, he got rid of the signs, the fences and the dogs, and allowed the villagers to “steal” from him at will.

Only it was no longer “stealing” because he was starting to practice the love he preached about. The point was driven home forcefully when a villager eventually asked him, “Mr. Koenig. Did you become a Christian?”

Pass all the legislation you want. We see through it. All we can do is hope that someday you become a Christian.

A vote for God

Thanks to that sharp moderator over at Xnforums, I saw this article on Missouri attempting to pass legislation that says it recognizes a Christian God, and since the majority favors the expression of the belief of that God, the voluntary prayer and religious displays are not a coalition of the Church and State.

Admittedly, my first thought was this was ridiculous that Christianity felt the only way it could demonstrate its viability, was not though good works, not by demonstrating love, not by loving one’s neighbor, but by passing legislation.

I see a modern day Paul, writing a letter to the Jefferson Citians, “I thank God in my every remembrance of you, as to how you passed that legislation and really showed them who was boss!” Amazing that Christians would even bother wasting their time on this nonsense.

Apparently it wants to protect a majority? Then let’s protect the majority! What is the majority “God” so we know which one to favor? They have already determined “Christian” so all you pagans, wiccans, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Christian Scientists, Scientologists, pantheists, deists, and other non-Christian Gods need not apply.

According to this statistic the primary majority were Christians, followed by secular/non-religious. (“We’re No. 2! We’re No. 2!”) But, among Christians, the majority was Catholics! Are the Protestants of Missouri going to stand for a Catholic God? I think not!

According to Barna if go by denomination designation, Catholics win again with 22%. However, only 22% of those Catholics are born again, whereas 88% of the Assembly of God, who comprise only 3% of the total denominations, are born again. Whew! What statistic do we use to determine “majority”?

Is the majority by state? The opening paragraph states it is relying upon the God of our “forefathers.” Do we determine which forefathers we use, and then use that majority?

So now a state can “opt-out” of the mandates of the Federal Government, regarding separation of church and state because of a majority position. If a county, within Missouri, happens to have a majority of Protestants, can it “opt-out” of this Catholic God? Or vice versa? Or a city, within a county that opted-out of the State’s opting out, can it opt back in? And at this point are you even sure which “opt” that city is going with? What about a subdivision within the city?

One of the most dangerous concepts, the very fear of our forefathers, was rule by majority. Anyone heard of the checks-and-balance system? From Eighth grade government class? We all fear majority rule, that’s why Christians want to beat everyone to the punch, and get it first!

But if we are going to do this thing, let’s do it right. One thing about legislation, it likes to get its definitions right. What is the majority definition of “God” so we know which one to favor? Watching how tragic this idea is, the only humor I can find, will be watching them define the correct God!

If they start with the God of tradition, the Catholics will be pleased as punch. Of course, the Protestants will raise the cry of ”Sola Scriputra” and the battle will be off. Will the Charismatics prevail by use of force? They have more exercise, from jumping up and down. All the Baptists have are pot-luck dinners. Where will the Wesleyans fare against the stalwart Calvinists? They have the freedom of will, against the awful pre-determined force.

Want to show the “majority”? It’s easy. Forget your statistics. Forget your roll calls. Start to define “God.” It will only take a few words, and we will see the “majority” quickly become 1000 quibbling minorities.

Hopefully No. 2 will be there to pick up the pieces.

'Fraid?

Why did I never hear of believers deconverting because of reasonable arguments? I am not strong into “conspiracy theories” and it seems over dramatic to speak of a conspiracy of silence, yet it is not discussed in a church setting.

Perhaps, simply because it happened to me, I am now more attuned to it, but it is not any more prevalent. Like when you find a certain colored car, but once you see one, you seem to find them everywhere. I know I have never met a deconvert in person, nor had I ever heard of one before me, so I figured it was rare.

I hadn’t really thought about it much. Having been on varying forums, I have met others that have deconverted, but I figured “birds of a feather” were just flocking together. We were oddities, sprinkled about the world, but not in real numbers.

Now I am out in blog-world, and I keep running across blogs of people that deconvert. Sure, it is what I am interested in, but I see more and more and more.

And I recall (at the time I thought nothing of it) that in conversations with leaders of churches, more than once it was mentioned that they had “friends” that had become atheists. I thought (like I would as a Christian) it was back-sliding, hard-drinking, sexual deviants that despised the moral requirements of Christianity.

Now I am not so sure…

Is it becoming more common? Is the internet allowing people to interact with others of different beliefs, causing us to question, in ‘net-universe, what we never interact with in life? My family is Christian. My friends are Christian. My social life was geared around a Church. In my work life, religion is never discussed. The only conversations I ever had about beliefs were with those that believe just like me.

And now I see that my friends and family would prefer to not discuss deconversion. Or what I learned. Or what I have argued, studied, investigated, and pursued. Is it that this is happening, and the Christians don’t want to talk about it? Has it become a forbidden topic?

And a nagging thought keeps pressing my brain. Why are theists not interested in acquiring knowledge? This is the belief system they are betting their entire life (and after life) on. I would think they couldn’t get enough. The nagging thought intensifies to a growing concern—is it fear of knowledge?

Learning One universal statement that is replete throughout every deconversion story I have read, is that it came from a desire to learn more. It is commonly stated that a person encounters a particular problem, and begins to investigate it. Traditionally, this leads to further difficulties, further investigation and eventually a full blown study of the very basic tenets of the belief.

For me, it started simply enough with some questions about how atheists could possibly have morality. Then to questions on the canon of the Bible, inspiration, and various troubling verses. At each turn, I was looking up articles on-line, buying and borrowing books, reviewing debates, reading debates, lurking, and thinking. I would read the Bible, pray, and wrestle with the concepts that were presented.

But I never stopped, to this day, learning.

Willingness to Learn At one point, I decided to abandon my entire study, as it was causing difficulty in my faith. It lasted for about a day. If there was a god, and it had given me a brain, and my brain was full of questions, why should I avoid them? Wasn’t I to use my intellect to research the questions on god(s) to determine the appropriateness of each belief?

I do not see a willingness to learn in many theists. Oh, they like to hear the general idea of the other side—but to study it? Understand it? Know it so well, they could actually, if called to, be able to argue the position? No thank you. This requires work, dedication, and more study than the Christian wants.

Besides, the Christian already knows they are right, why bother? It would be a waste of time. Yet I can’t help wondering—if it is such a waste of time, why be afraid? Put the skeptic’s criticisms to rest. Understand it, learn it, and then explain, using God-tapped power, how it is wrong. Or is it that there is just a twinge of fear that the Christian would be unable to do so? Even after requesting God’s help?

It is so freeing to be unattached to a particular dogma or doctrine! No, not in the ability to go out and rob a bank, but in the ability to review a particular statement or claim, and have the freedom to review every possible angle, without necessary adherence to one view. Studying the Bible is actually fun, when not caged in doctrine. Is it an interpolation? Redaction? Original to the author? Is it a story, a history, a polemic? What are the possible Greek/Hebrew interpretations or translations? When was it written, by whom and to whom?

No longer must the Gospels recount an actual historical Jesus. It is possible that some, or even all of it is myth. While I do not hold to a complete mythical Jesus, the possibility remains, as further study continues.

That is what I am talking about, in terms of a willingness to learn. A willingness to even abandon what I held true yesterday, upon learning new information today.

It is at this point, I find many Christians shut down. Run away. While they are willing to review the possibility of a slight modification upon overwhelming evidence, the idea of review basic beliefs is so foreign, they will not take the first step on the path.

Misrepresentation of opposing views. This one surprised me. I see more and more apologetic books hitting the market, in an almost frenzied attempt to rationalize the validity of a belief based on faith. (Think about it.)

But what surprises me is the lack of honest inquiry. Rather than say, “Look, there are two sides to this issue” and fairly present both sides, with an argument as to why the author’s position is the better, I see, “There is the other side” which is then misrepresented.

“Evolution is just a theory.” No, that is a deliberate confusion of the word, “theory” as commonly used, as compared to how science uses it. “There are no absolutes” is confusion between a moral absolute and a logical absolute. “Atheists have just as much faith by sitting in a chair” a confusion between “faith in the unknown” and “trust based upon repeated experimentation.”

Over and over, I see apologetic books misrepresent the position of the opposing side, and then perform a beautiful job of destroying this false argument. Commonly called a “strawman.” If a God is based upon truth, what possible harm could come from fairly and adequately presenting BOTH sides, and then letting the truth shine out?

Almost every single deconvert (including me) has been informed at least once, “Have you read ____?” in the hope that one book would turn around a year of study. And if we dare reply, “No, but I will read it, if you read ____” we get rejected more times than not. We are to read Christian apologetics, but no Christian dares read skeptical books. They are forbidden.

Look, if you want to read what evidence a skeptic bases their claim upon—read the skeptic! Don’t read the theist that claims what the skeptic says—go to the source. It is very damning to say, “Skeptics once believed the Bible was not true because it mentioned Hittites,” when the research reveals the inaccuracy of this statement. Hard to re-establish credibility.

But as I have said before, one has to choose. If all you want to do is bolster the claim in the Sunday School class, go right ahead! Read only Christian apologetics. Make such statements. No one will call you on it. No one will research it. No one will investigate.

They are too afraid, I think.

persecution

Do Christians really feel persecuted in America? I can understand, in other countries, where one’s religious beliefs, including Christianity, can literally place a person in danger, where this would be a valid concern—but in America?

I have recently been perusing sites talking about this prevalent persecution of Christians that appears to be on the verge of exploding into a vast, conspiratorial outbreak (at least as these sites seem to claim) and tried to figure out exactly how the Christians are being oppressed. I am, frankly, a little disappointed in the results.

Apparently, it is torment of the highest degree, if I dare propose legislation that the Christian does not agree with. This becomes a bit tricky, when we realize the variety of Christian beliefs out there, and that some legislation agrees with some brands, but is in direct opposition to others. The Catholic Church has endorsed evolution being taught, but if a law is passed stating that, other Christians, it would seem, have been tortured into agony. Oppressed. Harassed. Persecuted.

Excuse me? I am relying upon the scientific community which informs me evolution is as valid a theory as the atomic theory (no one seems to argue that one!) and there is no way to empirically test creationism. If a Christian wants to be taken seriously that they are being racked simply because of what is being taught in schools—change it. Christians, too, have a democratic process. Think intelligent design is worthy of an academic subject? Take it to the academic community and demonstrate it.

Very few Christians, in my experience, have even read one single book on the theory of evolution from the perspective of a scientist. Yet they cry “Persecution” if it is taught in the public schools. That evening, they will take medicine, which has been developed specifically because of evolutionary theory, and think nothing of it.

Another claim of infringement is in “the media.” What exactly “the media” entails is never quite certain. Sometimes it is news reporting, sometimes it is Television, sometimes print media. All claiming that it portrays Christianity in a bad light, and that this is a scourging of the Christian. Yeah, that Passion of the Christ thing must have been terrible.

Here I have to claim some ignorance. I don’t employ enough of the media. Perhaps if I watched more television, I would be aware of Christian-bashing that, according to these sites, must be a daily event. I also do not have cable or satellite, so perhaps all those Christians that pay for such services are subjected to greater torture.

I find it amusing that many churches outright close on Super Bowl Sunday, due to the drop in attendance. Many join in by having a Super Bowl Party (with an appropriate half-time devotional to “legitimatize” it) of their own. I can only assume the congregation is busy being “persecuted” by beer commercials and wardrobe malfunctions.

I attended a fundamentalist Bible college. Televisions were not allowed in the rooms, and each dormitory had a common room with one (1) Television. It could only be on for certain hours in the evening. And the school provided its own TV Guide. If it wasn’t on the Guide, you were not allowed to watch it. This happened to be the year Miami Vice came out. It was on the Guide for the first week. (How, I have no idea.) This show had everything we were not allowed to have—sex, drugs and rock’n’roll! Of course, the next week it was off the list. There was such an outcry from the student body, and complaints, that in the third week (and thereafter) it was allowed with a large, bold statement, “Strongly cautioned. For Mature Christians” assuring that everyone watched it with glued eyeballs. All must have been researching the on-going media persecution of Christianity!

I read bits about how Wal-mart(c) saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” is evidence that thumb-screws and the rack are next for Christians. How the “homosexual agenda” cleverly getting homosexual marriages outlawed in many of the states is a sign that soon Christians will have to practice their beliefs underground. Questioning the right of a Christian advocating murdering all homosexuals is apparently oppressive.

Not allowing the Ten Commandments as a monument is harassment. Allowing an Islamic prayer before a football game is equally horrid punishment to the Christian.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not claiming that atheists are persecuted either. (Some may even disagree with this, but it is how I see it.) We live in a free society that allows, and encourages public forum debate in which to express ideas. Part of that speech will be disagreeable to others. But that doesn’t rise to the level of persecution!

And our society will impose laws to protect the minorities. It is easier to eliminate than to be all inclusive. By that I mean it is easier to eliminate all religious trappings than to include all. To have no Nativity, rather than a Nativity, a Kwanza scene, a Menorah, a winter festival, a blank spot for non-practitioners, etc.

And behind all of this, I can’t help thinking—“Don’t you want to be persecuted?” Wouldn’t Christianity be thrilled to stand out? We, of the world, are supposed to be evil, fallen. Of “darkness.” You know the thing that humans of the world cannot comprehend and love rather than the light? (John 3:19) Isn’t this supposed to be a sign that you are doing things right? If you weren’t being persecuted, isn’t that a problem? So why complain about it?

It is a sad, but simple axiom in my work. If the other side isn’t happy, that means I must be doing something right. I would hope it would be the same with Christian oppression. If you aren’t being oppressed by the “world” (whatever that means), you must not be doing something right.

I did read on a few sites, this recognition, and a statement that not all were called to be oppressed (not sure that is true; John. 15:19), and that Christians have the right to speak out against such persecution. But why bother? The worst that is happening is some TV shows make stereotypical jokes, just like they do about other religions, sexes and ethnicities? Or you teach your children creationism out of the school environment? Or you have a Nativity on a thousand lawns, rather than one City Hall?

In light of the atrocities around the world (and there ARE Christians being physically persecuted in other countries) it seems very petty to claim that “Will & Grace” is causing you severe depression by actually having a homosexual laugh.

If that’s the best Christians have for persecution, perhaps to relieve some of the agony, use that “off” button on the remote. Start researching evolution. Teach children what you want on your own time. Start interacting in the homosexual community as a person, not a persecuted prune. Get involved in the process of making laws, and not just the laws you like.

Name that (fine) tune

Talk about your mixed signals—just what did God expect us to think when we started to investigate the universe?

A long, long time ago, humans assumed that the world erratically wandered about, wrecking havoc as it chose, or granting benevolence at its whim. And the humans petitioned the gods of nature to increase the benevolence, and reduce the detriment through whatever means the humans thought were the most persuasive.

But over time, the humans started to notice that the tides always went out at a certain time, the sun always came up in the same spot, that light always increased in summer, and decreased in winter, regardless of how one petitioned the gods.

Humans started to take these repeated events into account, and observational science (in the roughest degree) was born. Instead of petitioning their god for good fishing, they observed the tides, and made their own decisions as to when it was time to fish, and when it was not. The conflict between what the gods set in motion by creating nature, and what the gods actually did on a day-to-day basis was introduced.

And through the course of history, technology has allowed humans to improve their understanding of the world about us. We eventually conceded that despite all appearances, the sun and stars don’t revolve around us. That other planets have gravity, and can also have moons. That light travels at a constant speed. And there are billions and billions of galaxies with billions and billions of stars.

And as we studied, God seem to do less and less. He isn’t holding the earth in space, the sun is. He isn’t holding atoms together, gluons are. He isn’t sending plagues to punish sins, nor demons to cause illnesses. More and more, these are things that are set in motion by a God, and let travel through the course of history. God is reduced to no longer controlling the universe, but on occasion interacting within it. It becomes so rare, we invented a word for it—“miracles.”

I recently became aware of Carl Sagan’s comparison of history to a year. This statistic fascinates me, with how puny our existence really is. If the course of the known universe’s history was compared to one year, placing the Big Bang at the first second of January 1st, do you know when humans would appear? We would have started walking upright at about 5 minutes to midnight on December 31st. That’s it. The Pyramids would have been built at 12 seconds to midnight. Christ would have been born at 5 seconds to midnight.

That impressed upon me, just how little time we have actually been around, and for how long the universe has been cooking, just to bring Humans to boil. A creator would have had to work for (or set in motion) billions and billions of years, the equivalent of 363 days, 23 hours and 55 minutes of a year, just to bring about 5 minutes worth of humanity.

Theists are equally impressed, and developed the “fine-tuning” argument. That the earth was so rare, and the conditions so perfect, that it took this long for God to finally arrive at his ultimate masterpiece—humanity.

The theist will then introduce some astronomical number so large it takes three people just to read it, saying, “The chance of life forming, given the conditions of the universe is 1 in 10 to the gadzillionth, being a 1 with a billion zeros behind it.” Therefore, they will proudly state, God must have created life.

However, isn’t this saying that your god is incompetent? If I told you I was doing something, and not too worry, there was only a one in a gadzillion chance that X would occur, it would be safe to say I had no intention, desire, or expectation that X would happen. If it did, I would call it an extreme fluke, and a mistake.

Yet that is what the theists claim God did. That He created a spectacular singularity, which due to the tremendous amount of speed necessary to keep it from immediately collapsing into its own gravity, the direction and position of the particles were equally tremendously impossible to predict their position. Therefore, life (or whatever the universe would have become) would have been completely unpredictable.

That certain events had to happen, at specific times, in specific sequences, or the whole shooting match would fall apart. And these developments would continue for billions of years, just to get to where we are today.

“Wait,” the theist may cry, “You are making my argument for me that it would so remotely possible for life to develop.” Here is the problem with statistics. Even impossibly large ones. What are the chances of a person winning the tour de France seven times? I have no idea. But after Lance Armstrong did it, what are the odds? Exactly 1 to 1. Because it happened. Long odds are interesting for future events. For past events, no matter how bizarre, they are exactly 1 to 1.

What are the odds of life developing to the point humans appear? Since it happened, we know (with or without a god)—exactly 1 to 1. If it didn’t happen, we wouldn’t be talking about it, now would we? The fact that it took so long, and required intricate steps, does not eliminate this possibility from occurring. Once it happened, the odds remain 1 to 1.

The hidden agenda of the huge odds against life in the fine-tuning argument is not whether it could happen, but whether it did happen. It is similar to seeing Bob win the lottery three times in a row. The odds of it happening are (now) 1 to 1. The fine-tuning argument is claiming that the odds Bob winning three times in a row are so impossibly high, so impossibly unlikely, that the lottery must be rigged, or there is something nefarious afoot.

And here is where I get the mixed signals. I start to look at the evidence of the impossibility of Bob winning the lottery, and I keep getting told by the theist that I must assume Bob cheated, and look at all the evidence in light of that presumption. Which I am inclined to do, but then the theist, rather than introduce specific evidence of Bob’s cheating, simply reiterates over and over the impossible odds:

“It is impossible that Bob could win lottery three times in a row. He cheated.”
“Did Bob know someone who works for the lottery?”
“Look, the chances of Bob winning at all are remote.”
“True, but that is taken into account in your huge number. Did Bob cheat on the first lottery? What evidence is there for that?”
“Hey, the chances of winning the lottery twice are even more astronomical.”
“Yes, I know, we covered that in your huge number. Is there something in the second win that is so similar to the first win that we should look at it as cheating?”
“The chances of winning twice in a row are even more remote.”
(Exasperated) “I KNOW. We have covered this. What evidence do you have that Bob actually cheated?”

See how the fine-tuning argument is NOT an argument for God, but rather an argument that the chance of life coming about is extremely remote? It never introduces evidence that there must be a creator, just skepticism that it could occur naturally. That’s it. Something even science recognizes.

So at this point the theist may say, “No, you have to look at it as if God intervened at the right moment, and the right time. Intervening numerous times within that first second. Pushing our galaxy out this far at the right time. Forming the sun, Jupiter and the moon at the right rate and instant. Time and Time again, God must correct, re-correct and correct again the universe to keep the plan for humans to appear.”

How do we see this God? What parameter do I use to measure a natural event vs. a supernatural event? I see natural developments that take billions and millions of years to develop very slowly, and in an un-straightforward sequence, as if there were no God at all. Every time the theist needs a god, it interjects one without rhyme or reason. Have we reverted back to gods with whim and unpredictability?

So let’s play the same odds with this Creator. If we desire, we can figure out the odds of chance of a meteor the size of Texas hitting the eighth planet from the star Persei. There may have to be a few guesses, and approximations, but we can come within a range. Now figure the odds of a unicorn appearing over London in the year 2006. You can’t. That’s the problem with supernatural, non-empirical evidence. We have no baseline, no ability whatsoever to make any prediction about supernatural interaction.

What are the odds that the creator intervened at the right moment to keep inertia spreading? Since we do not even know if the creator DID intervene here (or earlier, or later) there is no possible way to determine this. The odds of the universe developing life may be gadzillion to 1, but they are still less than the calculated odds of a god intervening. Because those odds are deliberately incalculable.

If the fine-tuning argument desires to be convincing, the theist must use the same methodology and provide support for the odds of a god interacting with “miracles” (non-natural events) at certain times and certain places. As we cannot even get the confirming data to support this claim—good luck!

If there was a god that started the mess, the very odds the theist is citing demonstrate that life was not on this god’s agenda. I start using what scientists tell me is true about the beginning of the universe, and lo and behold, the theist is right—life is extremely unlikely. Therefore, if a god started this universe, the only possible conclusion we can come to is that it did not desire, plan or intend life to happen.

Can I use science or not? I am told that using what science tells me, I should realize that it is an impossibly long odd for life to occur. O.K. Then I use the same science to realize this equally means we would have a creator that did not intend life to therefore occur. And I am told to stop using this science, and start using faith that a god must have intervened at certain times. I then ask the theist, if I am supposed to use odds to realize how unlikely life could naturally occur, what odds do they propose are applicable under their scenario? As there is no way to determine what God intervenes in, and what God doesn’t, they have no odds. Not even a gadzillion to 1.

Eating Apples is bad for your health

One thing I enjoy about the Internet is the chance to discuss differing beliefs with differing individuals. Often we can get stuck in our own rut, talking to only those that agree with our position—this gives us a chance to “stretch our mental legs” as it were.

As a debate was raging elsewhere, a thought struck me that I hadn’t considered before: Can God make a law He can’t break?

We have all seen the conundrum of, “Can God make a rock He can’t lift?” Which demonstrates nicely that we need to limit the description of a God, at least to the logical realm, or otherwise it will simply degrade into meaningless babble. And our debates can revolve around whether God is limited by His own nature, morally, or by some external determination of morals, but can God self-limit Himself to forever bind Himself, thus creating a new moral?

We seem to agree that in the normal sense, God voluntarily limits Himself to the laws of Nature. The Earth revolves around the sun at a certain amount of time. Not a new time every year as determined by God. Gravity attracts at a certain rate. The tides can be measured.

We also seem to agree that if there was a God that interacted with the natural world, it could set aside those natural laws, and remove the limit He has placed on Himself. We even have a name for those instances—“miracles.” The problem comes in, is to determine where morals fall. Are they inherent within God, like logic, that cannot be extracted, or are they like the laws of nature, that God normally limits Himself, but can, on occasion, breach by His choosing?

The reason this even crossed my mind was thinking on the Adam and Eve story, with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We all know the story, God creates a Garden, places a tree in it, and tells Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit of the tree. As near as the simplistic story tells us, there was only one moral in the Garden, that is to Not eat the Fruit. It came to me: “Could God have eaten the fruit?”

Moral. Let’s assume that God could eat the Fruit. As we see from the story, eating the fruit would not have given God any more knowledge than He already had. The breach of morality could be disobedience to God, not the actual eating of the fruit.

Under this scenario. God could have arbitrarily picked anything—“Don’t pet the tiger,”-- and that would become the immoral act. God could pet the tiger, humans could not. The tree itself, being named “Knowledge of Good and Evil” means nothing. Could have been an average apple tree.

This raises interesting questions, though as to what is “moral” and what is not. If it is moral for God, can it be immoral for us? That would arguably mean that all things that are immoral for us could be moral for God. He simple arbitrarily picked a few items out that He is most certainly allowed to do, but we cannot.

But then should we attempt to imitate God? Should we research an determine what His morals are, and emulate them, or do we accept what other humans say God says we can or cannot do, and accept that?

This also brings into question whether God is being arbitrary. By what method could we possibly determine He is using to pick what is moral/immoral for us to do? Is it our conscience? Is it societal determination? Further, God could easily, using His whim, make something moral today and immoral tomorrow.

Assume, A is moral to God. Whether A is murder or eating ice cream doesn’t matter. Under this scenario, God can tell humans that A is immoral to humans. But since it is actually moral, the very next day, God can say A is moral, and that, too, would be correct. The next, A is now immoral, and so on.

The only determinative as to what is moral/immoral is that the same action may be disobedient to God one day, but obedient to God the next. Which causes some concern. God can’t disobey God. Even if, on Monday, God says, “A is wrong. It will always be wrong. No body, not even me, can do A,” on Tuesday, God can say, “New Rule. Now A is O.K. for me to do, and not anyone else.” God can change in an instant, and never disobey God.

For all you moral realists, this is a bit of problem because it vests morality in a God that can change its mind with no retribution. Saying Eating the Fruit was Moral for God, but Immoral for us, leaves us with the complete inability to determine what is actually moral, and what God is just ordering.

Immoral Assuming God could not eat the fruit. Think this through. God is the determination of morality. He creates a situation that He knows he cannot violate. It is in a tree that He created. It is an action that he created. (No tree==no choice=no immorality.)

This makes God the creator of immorality. Even for Himself. On what basis, other than whim, is it created? Prior to creation, no immorality. At creation, He makes a tree. Nothing inherent in the tree itself (in fact, to God, it would simply impart knowledge he already has.) Then God says, “No can eat. Not even me.” At this point, the possibility of immorality comes into existence. Prior to that second, no such immoral act could possibly exist. Only after that second does the possibility of immorality exist.

But if God can create immorality, equally, it would seem, He could create morality. Which would mean that, just like the previous problem the next instant He could “undo” His statement, and remove the immorality from eating the tree.

Non-moral Perhaps it would make no difference for God to eat the fruit or not. This still leaves us with the problem of something that is immoral for humans is non-moral for God. He can make a non-moral action to be immoral (or moral, frankly.) What other non-moral actions has He made moral/immoral?

We are left in an interesting pickle. We have no clue whether eating the fruit is moral/immoral/non-moral to God. Any of the options leaves us with the problem of whether we should be following the same moral dictates of the God (which we cannot determine) or we should be following what God says, whether ultimately it is moral or not.

Let’s look at real life. We, as humans, find genocide detestable. If there is anything that most seem to agree is “evil” it is this act. Assume that in some way, some how, you learn that it is immoral to commit genocide. “Over God’s head” as it were, written in whatever stone absolute morality is written.

A human comes to you and says, “God told me to tell you to commit genocide.” On this, you could scoff and say, “Ha! I happen to know that genocide is immoral. Therefore I will not commit it.” But this generates a concern. If God can determine a moral act is immoral, can He not equally determine an immoral act is moral? Why would it only be a one-way street? The person could respond, “But you believe morality is vested in God’s nature. That is your absolute morality. And God specifically informed me that it has now changed—it is now moral.” Couldn’t it be?

If it was immoral for the humans to eat of that tree, and non-moral or moral for God, then God arbitrarily determines morality. If it was immoral for both, then God created immorality by creating a choice. Either way, it is God that is determining immorality on an unknown, unverified, and completely uncertain system.

Which should gives us an extreme humility in imposing morality on others, based upon a God that refuses to reveal what is really moral or not.

Sword Drill

It is a bit of a sticky wicket, trying to figure out how to use the Bible, in these debates.

The other day I read (and it is quite common) a claim by an atheist, requesting Christians to refute it, with a closing statement, “…and don’t use the Bible to defend your position.” We have all seen it.

I understand exactly where the atheist is coming from. The Bible is no more authoritative on the properties of God, than the movie ”Oh God; You Devil” or the Boston yellow pages. Just because a few men or women got together 1000’s of years ago, and wrote down their particular version of God, and another group of men and women pared it down to just a few books, does not exactly bowl us over with enthusiasm.

If we concur that the Bible is authoritative, how hard is the argument for God? “The Bible says so.” Boom—we’re done.

To analogize, for the Christian, imagine debating with a Muslim. They may refer to the Qur’an, but as you do not hold it authoritative in any way, as to what God’s properties are, it does not move you one little ounce, if the Qur’an purports a concept on theism. It’s a book about a God, sure. But not authoritative to the Christian.

Your telling me “According to the Bible….” is the equivalent of my telling you, “According to the Book of Enoch…” Unmoving.

BUT I certainly relate to the objection of the Christian in this regard. The very basis of their belief is in the Bible. The description of their God is in the Bible. The roots and foundation of their entire belief system is embedded in the book.

It is the equivalent to telling a lawyer to argue his case, but he cannot use the law! I can see why the Christian would mutter, “Then what in the blue blazes CAN I use?”

Worse, there are people like me that do not hold the Bible authoritative, yet feel free to cite passages against the proposal the Christian is making. I sense they feel it is hardly fair for me to use it against them, yet not hold to the truth of its precepts.

Is there a middle ground? Is there some level of definition, by which we can agree, “At least here it has viability, and from here we separate.”? I find it difficult to arrive at such a definition.

Take the most basic—Christianity is described by the Bible. Whether true or not, that we can say, “There is a Christian. To determine what they believe, we can use the Bible.” But even that has become nebulous. Using the Bible, we have liberal Christians that do not hold the stories of Jesus to be completely true. We have inerrantists, literalists, allegorists. We have varying numbers of books in the Bible. Even taking someone like a Calvin or a Luther, we struggle to understand their position on the Book of Revelations.

Simply saying, “That person believes the Bible is inspired” leaves a whole world of questions to limit their beliefs.

The atheist may say that since the Christians can’t seem to agree on what the Bible says, why should they hold it as authoritative? The Christian may say that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one, and the others should be dismissed.

Even if we agree on the matter of what the words themselves are, this matter of interpretation becomes problematic. The other day, I was reading an article on the “Problem of Evil” and the author was emphatic that God not only is responsible for the existence of evil, but since there is no such thing as free will, and God controls everything that happens, God actively decrees evil. The author went on to note how God performed the greatest act of moral evil and injustice in human history.

The author further noted that God loves. Therefore, the author interpreted scripture as saying that the love of God must include the existence of evil. Because the Bible has both, so therefore it is true.

It is this type of argument that drives a non-believer to say, “…and don’t use your Bible.” Not the Bible itself, but these interpretations the believer demands as truths.

And it is difficult, for me, having now studied the Bible, and realized it is just human thoughts, to hold it in the high regard necessary for the Christian to appreciate my position.

For example: One verse says “God incited David to take a census…” and another says, “Satan incited David to take a census…” Both use the same word, “incited.” Later we find out this census was immoral. For me I can shrug this off as two different writers, that, just like other human efforts, result in a contradiction. I hardly think twice about it.

For an inerrantist, it becomes difficult to explain God and Satan both performing the same act that results in a sin. We end up with the notion that “God incited David..” must be translated, “God allowed Satan to tempt David….” and “Satan incited David…” must be translated, “Satan incited David.”

But what really baffles me, is how little many (maybe most?) Christians know about their Bible. I have a friend that said, eloquently, “Christians do Bible study. They don’t study the Bible.” I find the book, its creation, its implications, and how it has wended its way through history a fascinating subject. Rather than cage it in a doctrine, it is free to be studied as it developed.

Mention the translation problems and most Christians look off into space. Comment on the synoptic problem, and they look puzzled. Allude to the fact that Paul didn’t write 1 Timothy, and they think your brains fell out of your head. Now, this is true of the predominance of Christians, but not all Christians. There are many that can hold their own on these arguments, and even prevail to make a point.

What to do?

I am not sure there is an easy solution. How would a Christian take the Qur’an seriously? How can I take something that is man-made and elevate it to a more authoritative position than other man-made products?

Here is an area in which it appears we cannot find easy middle ground.

Suggestion to Christians? Want us to take the Bible seriously? Study its creation. Study the translation problems. Study the Canon. Learn the history behind it. Study the Hebrew Culture, and the Greek/Judean world of the First Century.

Perhaps within that study, you can learn why I do appreciate the Bible as a literary document, but consider a human creation. Not asking you to do so, but perhaps see why others do. Just like you consider the Qur’an a human creation.

The Logical Song

There have always been attempts to rationally defend Christianity, through the means of philosophies, logical arguments, and proofs. I wonder if the mantra should be “Saved by Faith, Justified by Philosophy.” (And yes, that is a play on the word “justified.”) As if philosophical arguments take precedence over the religion itself.

I see more outrage over a logical fallacy than a verse taken out of context. Cries of “strawmen” without quiet explanation. I am reading another blog about Paul’s contempt for the “wisdom of this world,” yet the comments are replete with use of exactly that wisdom today to support Christianity.

It is a dilemma for the theist. Without the ability to empirically observe the supernatural, we are solely left with devising what the supernatural consists of by our observations and extrapolations of the natural world. But the question continually arises—how do we verify that what is natural is at all reflective of supernatural?

For example, we have the concept of “time.” The reason we understand that time has happened is by measuring the amount of change. We can observe it, derive concepts from it, test it and work within its parameters. Having seen it here, does that mean the supernatural has “time”? Must the supernatural have everything the natural does? And if it does, can it be something different than what we observe? Can they reverse change and call it “time”? Can they stop time? Or is “time” such a foreign concept, that we are simplistically explaining a deeply complex phenomenon?

I continually see leaps of, “We have it here, so they must have it there.” O.K., but we all realize immediately that would make supernatural just part of natural. So the theist must modify it to some degree, and what that degree is, or why, or how all remains a complete mystery.

And we talk of morality. I learn that God has morality, but it doesn’t look like our morality. We know He has it, because the natural has it. We know it is different in the supernatural because……well…….because the theist doesn’t want God to have immorality. Therefore, it must be different. We talk of love. I learn that God has love, but it doesn’t look like our love. We know He has it because the natural has it. We know it is different because……well…..because loving God should communicate continually with people and He doesn’t.

Here in the natural world we treat sentient beings with respect. Apparently in the supernatural world, God’s sovereignty does not require it. We hold people responsible for their own actions. Apparently in the supernatural world, one doesn’t. Time and time again, I am informed that supernaturally, “things are different.”

Which is it? Am I to derive concepts from the natural world that lead me to believe in a supernatural world or not? Where does the theist obtain the information to pick and choose which bits stay and which bits go?

Another example, I am informed that by observation of a creation in the natural realm, there must be a creator in the supernatural realm. Fair enough. I also observe morality and immorality in the natural realm. Whoops! Brakes on! All of a sudden I am informed that the supernatural has a different sense of morality/immorality. I observe death in the natural realm. Whoops! Brakes on! I am informed that souls are immortal. I observe the passage of time…..On and on, things I observe here, I am, on occasion, to use to derive the supernatural, and on occasion, to not. Who gets to pick?

Despite all these differences and varieties, the one thing that apparently crosses over is logic—the method by which we attempt to derive what God must be like. It is this logic that the Christian uses to rationalize their belief. And it is good they do so. If we cannot discuss theism in a logical fashion, then all our conversations would degrade into the appearance of a drug-induced psychotic state.

But since we cannot empirically verify anything in the supernatural world, and I am informed that numerous, if not countless, ideas and concepts in the natural world are not the same in the supernatural world, how is it that logic must be the same? Could logic be different in the supernatural world?

And once we say that, then really there is nothing to say about the supernatural world, except we have no way of knowing anything about it, even if it exists. How to get around that? Simple—by definitional fiat. As long as we retain the power to define what the supernatural world must look like, all logical problems can cease to exist.

One of the most basic concepts of logic is that: “A cannot equal Not-A.” Something can’t be and not be at the same time. Is this true in the supernatural world? Let’s see:

1. God = Not (tempted)
2. Jesus = tempted.
3. Therefore, Jesus cannot equal God.

Ah, there is a logical problem. How to get around? Simple—place Jesus, by definition as 100% God and 100% Man, and all logical problems go away. Need Him tempted? Point out He is 100% Man. Need Him to be the atonement? Point out He is 100% God. Dying? Man. Raising Himself up? God.

We have the logical problem of 3=1. What to do? Define it as a trinity, and all logical problems go away. Muck it up with long-winded apologetics, and somewhere within hope that people do not realize you are simply defining what you are attempting to prove.

Elsewhere, I have pointed out how genocide is immoral. What to do, to get around the logical problem of God being moral and ordering genocide? Simply, merely change the definition of genocide from “the systematic killing of, or a program of action intended to destroy, a whole national or ethnic group” to “the systematic killing of a whole national or ethnic group, unless God orders it, because He is sovereign and gets to do what He wants.” See how easy that is?

Watch the leap from using logic to derive concepts to actually defining those concepts to avoid the logical problem.

A real world example that is often provided is the property of light. It acts as a particle and as a wave which should be mutually exclusive. Logically, a conundrum that is resolved by defining light as having the properties of both.

“A-ha,” the theist may say, “you are guilty of committing the same infraction. Avoiding a logical problem by definition.” But there is one immense, insurmountable difference—we can observe light. Whether we observe in space, underwater, over Europe, or underground. And, regardless of who observes it, it demonstrates both properties.

Remember why we are even using logic to determine supernatural—because it is empirically UNobservable. Light we can verify—gods we cannot.

Further, we can observe other items in nature (electrons) that have the properties of a wave and a particle. We can compare it to light, and see if these concepts that demonstrate duality, demonstrate similar duality. What God can we compare God to?

I see theists break this conversation down in very small pieces, so that the circular argument cannot be observed:

1. Since we cannot observe (and therefore define) supernatural beings, we must use logic to determine what they look like.
2. Use the logic of the natural world to put forth premises of the supernatural world.
3. If a logical contradiction occurs, re-define the supernatural being to conform to logic.

See how each of these three steps, individually, makes sense, but as a whole demonstrate that theists define that which they attempt to prove?

The multiverse theory looks about our natural universe and surmises that if this universe exists, it is possible that other universes exist. Many theists scoff at this. They inform me that, looking about this natural universe, a “supernatural” universe must exist. One that may, or may not, look like this natural universe, and may or may not, have some of the same concepts of this natural universe. The only thing we know about the “supernatural” universe is that it is bound by logic. Unless defined that it is not.

Rather than philosophically attempt to bolster one’s belief, better to stick with faith.

I once sat through a session with a church leader, answering questions on Christian concepts.

Q: What about the Problem of evil?
A: We think God holds Free will as more important but we don’t know.

Q: What does Heaven look like, and will there be pets?
A: We don’t really know.

Q: How can Jesus be 100% God and 100% Man?
A. We know that He was, we just don’t know how.

Q: How can God be three persons, yet one?
A. We can define the trinity, we just don’t understand it.

(It was, of course, much more theological and descriptive. But in a nutshell, that was the answer.) The final question, though, amused me:

Q: Is it arrogant to say the Christianity is the only way to get to Heaven?
A: Truth, by its nature, is restrictive. It is not arrogant; it is recognition of what is real.

We may not know one single thing about the supernatural, but we can be assured that what a theist says about it must be true.

Heads: God wins; Tails: Pharaoh Loses

I have always greatly enjoyed the story about Pharaoh/Moses and Exodus. Since we have been talking about morality here and there, it is fun to review that story in light of some of the statements claimed by Christians and their morality.

O.K., a little back story. The Hebrews were slaves in the county of Egypt. Yahweh had apparently forgotten about them, but happened to hear them complaining, and “remembered” His covenant with Abraham. Curious action for an all-knowing God.

God’s Wife: Alright, God. You need to paint the back wall of Heaven today.
God: Hey! Just remembered; I have to help the Hebrews out of Egypt. Gotta go!

Naturally God picks an 80 year old (Moses) and his 83 year old brother (Aaron) to lead the people out. The first few chapters of the Book of Exodus provide the interaction between Moses and God. To save you the time:

Moses: But I don’t wanna.
God: And you’re gonna.

What is more interesting is that God predicts exactly what will happen. He tells Moses that they will be leaving Egypt and inheriting Canaan. But, God tells Moses to ask Pharaoh for a three-day journey in the desert. No mention about ever leaving and never coming back.

This is a lie. God tells Moses to lie to Pharaoh. Is telling a lie immoral? Is telling someone else to tell a lie immoral? Of course, perhaps one could say that this was technically not a lie, because they really were going for a three-day journey. And another three-day journey. And another three-day journey. In fact, they were going for not just one, but 4,850 three-day journeys! Maybe lie is not the right word. An abysmal lack of the complete truth?

And Moses asks Pharaoh for the three day journey.

It has been discussed that God’s morals didn’t change through the course of history, but that how He interacted with humans changed. At one time, it was very important (apparently) that polyester blends should not be allowed. At another, no gold and pearls on women. What appears to be a change of requirements is merely God trying to interact with humans as best as He can. The one thing that remains constant, though, is that we must always, always, always obey God.

When God asked Pharaoh (via Moses) to let the people go, Pharaoh was supposed to obey this request of God’s--right? That would be obeying God.

Wrong. (I know. This morality based upon God can get tricky.) See God had already determined that He needed Pharaoh to say “no” so that God can show God’s power to the Egyptians. Apparently God’s glory trumps God’s call for obedience. (Exodus 7:3, 10:1-2, 14:4) God goes on and on about it, in fact.

Luckily for our story, then, Pharaoh does the right thing by saying, “No.” Right? Nope—wrong again! Because Pharaoh does the right thing, by saying “No,” God sends the first plague.

At this point, we must pause and wonder, exactly what the point of the plagues was? God had already determined that He would be sending the Tenth Plague, killing all the firstborns. (Ex. 4:23) Was God punishing Pharaoh? For what? Pharaoh, as we have seen, was doing exactly what God desired—giving God a chance to flex His muscles. Was God trying to persuade Pharaoh to let the people go? But when Pharaoh wanted to, God had to step in and physically force Pharaoh to change his mind.

We enter a macabre dance between Pharaoh, God and Moses.

Moses: Let my people go.
Pharaoh: No!
God: Pow with a plague.
Moses: Let my people go.
Pharaoh: Ulp……O.K.
God: Wrong! I have to harden your heart.
Pharaoh: Oh…..er…..then, “no”?
God: Bad choice. Pow with a plague.

Moses: Let my people go.
Pharaoh: Well. “No” was wrong. “Yes” was a problem. I’ll try “no” and see what happens.
God: Bad choice, again! Pow with a plague.
Pharaoh: O.K., O.K., O.K., I get it. “Yes.”
God: Not yet. Haven’t performed the tenth plague yet. I will harden your heart so that you will not let my people go. (Ex. 4:21)
Pharaoh: Look, God. If I say “no” you just hit my country with plagues. If I say, “yes” you beat me until I say “no.”
God: Did I hear you say, “no” so it is pow with a plague, or was that a “yes” so I have to harden your heart until you say “no.”? Wasn’t quite clear. Oh, what the hey—here’s a plague.

Finally, of course, God leads them right into the Tenth Plague.

I would think, as a Christian, personal responsibility would be a requirement for punishment. Apparently not, at least according to our story.

What if you and your spouse were young farmers somewhere in Egypt. You don’t own slaves. You barely know of the Hebrews. All you are trying to do is get by with what you have in the current bad times. The greatest joy you have is your newly born child. (Uh-oh.) You don’t even have a say as to who would pick the King’s shoes to wear to breakfast, let alone matters of national policy. Even if you DID want the Hebrews to go, look who is against you—the King of the Egyptians, and the God of the Hebrews.

What possible personal responsibility could such a farmer couple have in the fact the Hebrews were not allowed to leave Egypt? Yet, of course as we already know—that baby is killed along with all of the others.

After the tenth plague, without even asking, Pharaoh tells Moses to let the people go. Finally, God doesn’t step in. Guess what happens? Ta-da! The people are released to go. (Makes one wonder if God hadn’t stepped in earlier, what would have happened. No, wait. No it doesn’t. When God stopped stepping in, the people were let go.)

The Egyptians are broken. The people may leave. Now we have been told that Jesus is God. That He was right there, thick in the action. We all know the Jesus of the New Testament, “Love your Neighbor.” The Hebrews would see a neighbor in dire need. Countless Egyptian homes that would desire solace and concern. (In fact, the same sort of concern the Egyptian Mid-wives had provided the Hebrews 80 years earlier.)

So I am sure Jesus used this opportunity to demonstrate the exceptional qualities of Love within the Hebrew religion—right? Nope. Jesus orders the Hebrews to go ask for silver and gold from the Egyptians. Why is this Jesus so interested in silver and gold from grieving parents? The word used is that the Hebrews “plundered” the Egyptians. (By the way, this was a command of God. Ex. 3:22)

Alright. God has destroyed the Egyptians agriculture, killed all of their livestock, ruined their economy, and decimated their society. To add insult to injury, He has plundered their wealth while they grieve for their dead. Surely that would be enough.

It isn’t. It would appear that God did not feel quite satisfied with all of the killing previously performed. It didn’t sit right.

Pharaoh was ready to leave well enough alone. He had not intention whatsoever to have anything to do with those Hebrews. God can’t have that. God steps in and hardens Pharaoh’s heart so that Pharaoh must pursue the Jews.

Why? What possible gain could God have from this? The people were free. They were on their way to Canaan. Pharaoh wasn’t following them. What compels a God like this to cause further murder and destruction? God cranks it up a notch, by not only hardening Pharaoh’s heart, but He hardens the entire army’s heart! (Ex. 14:17) Basically, He would have to, to get them to ludicrously follow the Hebrews.

The Army was comprised of men who had lost children, brothers, fathers and cousins. They had seen the complete destruction of their society. For 60 to 90 days, they are held back by a cloud, watching the Hebrews slowly trudge across the sea floor. Morale would be at an all-time low, if not abandoned in full rout. About the only way TO get them to purse this crowd would be a miracle.

And, of course, having little choice in the matter, they follow the Hebrews and drown. The greatest irony of it all? The one person that is not listed among all the dead was Pharaoh. The very entity that God poured all of the blame on, did not receive the punishment. Everyone else did.

Obviously, as any study of history or archeology reveals, these events did not occur. But how does turning this into an allegory help? If, for some bizarre reason, God was compelled by some actual force of nature to do these horrendous things, and we simply cannot know why, that may, in some small way, give us pause to wonder of a possible excuse.

But to create a story to make a point, with such a base morality, is very difficult to explain.