Dear Anonymous Part 2: Why Your God is NOT Love, and Why Hate Can be a Virtue

This is the second part of a series I am writing in response to a commenter on this blog post:
A Critique of Richard Dawikins and WL Craig

Dear Anonymous,

You claim I am "mad"--which I am not. My job is to educate, which is why I am here. As you say, you are "stuck" trying to make sense out of something written in the OT that is difficult to make sense of.  I am here to help you and others "make sense out of it". My education provided me with multiple explanations for biblical passages--something lay people are unaware of, as their pastors/priests usually only provide them with one, perhaps two explanations. I am here to make sense out of the nonsense by exposing it for what it is, and provide people with alternate explanations, and the knowledge of my religious studies. The bible is what you claim the Quran and the Mormon bible is--stories made up and handed down--which makes it possible that the battles, and many other events depicted in the bible never ever took place. Besides the fact that the Jews are well known for embellishing their texts and have admitted to doing so, the archeological evidence shows that the best explanation is that the battles depicted in the bible never happened. (See The Bible Unearthed) Unfortunately for Christians, this then puts the entire book into question.

If the OT is difficult to understand, and includes events that are difficult to explain as you say, and if we consider that the millions of Christians around the world cannot even agree as to the meaning of the text, your god, if he was real, certainly has not done a very good job of "revealing" himself to his followers. Remember, the Jews were enslaved by other groups of more powerful people, and had learned the attributes of their gods. When they were finally freed, they embellished the attributes of the gods they were familiar with, and created their own based on the gods of their captors.  This is why there are so many striking similarities between the stories of the Greek, Babylonian and Egyptian gods--and the stories of the Abrahamic gods, and contradictions and inconsistencies.  Add to that the New Testament--and what a mess!!  The fact that the stories are a mish mash of different gods from different cultures is a large part of the reason why the bible is so difficult to understand.

You claim I am a hater, so I would also like to explain that hate is not always a vice. Hate can be beneficial to survival. If we hate our enemies, we are more likely to survive being assaulted by them. If women hated their abusive husbands, they would be more likely to leave them, as opposed to staying with them and sometimes dying in the process. Hate can protect us, and yes, I do hate the molesters of little children, the abusers of women and others that intentionally hurt people, and I hate the Christian philosophy that promotes this type of behavior. I hate the Christian philosophy of believing we are "born sinners," and I hate the philosophy of "unconditional love" and "forgiveness" for any heinous deed--as heinous deeds do not deserve to be forgiven, and love is something that should be earned, and not just given to anyone. Unconditional love and forgiveness is why so many women are murdered every year by their "loving husbands"--because they kept forgiving them over and over again. People that love each other, do not beat them to death, and the women should not forgive them for beating them--they should hate them--and leave them for a better life.  Hate does not have to consume a person.  It is possible to hate someone and be quite logical at the same time.  I do not believe that suffering is necessary to learn anything or, as you and Mother Teresa seem to believe, to bring one "closer" to god. That is utter nonsense. What suffering does do however, is create false hope, in that somehow a magical man in the sky will make things better for them. This is why religion is popular with the oppressed. It gives them "false hope."  It is also contradictory to consider that your god is the cause of suffering (as EVERY decision is from the Lord, {Prov 16:33} and the Lord created evil {Isaiah 45:7}) and is also "all-loving"--how bizarre.  This idea promotes the view that abuse can coexist with love--which is not only false, it has resulted in too many people suffering needlessly.  If you love someone, then you do not abuse them.  The Christian concept of love is bizarre!

Furthermore, contrary to what most Christians believe, their god does not advocate "unconditional love. " In Deuteronomy 7:12, Yahweh makes it clear that he will only love his people, IF they follow all his laws and commandments. This is a CONDITIONAL statement. His love is CONDITIONAL to following his laws.  Therefore, even according to the Christian god, love is conditional.  However, Christians claim that love is unconditional--which is another inconsistency and contradiction in the bible. 

 What's more, according to the bible writers, they cannot keep straight what love is or what it means in the first place. Logic, when applied to the text reveals a god that is love, and not love at the same time--another contradiction.  For according to the text:

"But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8

"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud " 1 Corinthians 13:4

But then they go on to say:

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, THE LORD YOUR GOD, AM A JEALOUS GOD, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"  Exodus 20:5

Which is a contradiction.  In the logical form of Modus Tollens, the following is the conclusion drawn from the above passages:

IF god is love, THEN god is not jealous. God IS jealous.  Therefore god is NOT love.
Therefore, according to the bible writers, god is love, and god is not love--a contradiction.

According to you, Jesus loved "flawlessly," but Jesus did not love flawlessly when he told his followers to abandon their families to follow him. No--that is not love. He did not love flawlessly when he had his feet anointed with oil--when the money gained from selling that oil could have been used to feed a starving family. No--that is not "flawless" love either.  And if Jesus is Yahweh, then killing innocent babies and fetuses (as explained in this post) is not love either. There are many occasions when Jesus does not love flawlessly, but considering that according to the bible, god is not love and is love at the same time, this is one thing that is consistent with the text--and not consistent with the text at the same time.....how bizarre.

I am enjoying responding to your comments very much, and I hope that they will enlighten you and others, and turn you away from a bad philosophy that promotes moral laxity,  but I must go now. Stay tuned for part 3.

In defense of Atheism--A Critique of Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig

Many know Richard Dawkins as an outspoken advocate of atheism and author of "The God Delusion." He is a well known speaker and has debated the subject of Christianity with many learned theists, including the Archbishop of Canterbury--but he refuses to debate the Christian philosopher, William Lane Craig. Because of this, Dawkins has been labelled by Craig and others, as a coward for not stepping up to take that challenge.

Now, in my view the debates are moot anyway, since the arguments have already been refuted long ago, and I too have offered refutations to WL Craig's arguments on this blog. In his defense, Dawkins claims he does not want to debate anyone who is willing to defend the slaughter of the Canaanites as being necessary --yet he has already debated others who have these same beliefs, including two archbishops of Canturbury--so this excuse makes no sense.  It makes no sense because as Christians, they cannot "disown" as Dawkins puts it, the parts of the bible that reveal the god ordained slaughtering of the innocents. (Deuteronomy 20: 13-15,) To do so would be to negate the authority of the bible--and it would become meaningless. Many scholars however, acknowledge that much of what is written about in war, and in other circumstances, is exaggerated hyperbole--and especially in the case of the slaughter of the Canaanites, the language used is full of bravado, is exaggerated, and is said to be hypberbolic.  Why, as the authors of "The Bible Unearthed" have shown, using  archeological evidence, the battles probably never even happened in the first place.   Jesus however, never "disowned" any part of the Old Testament, and did not claim the OT to be anything but the word of God.  He did not "disown" the so called word of God--and neither can Christians, or they would not be Christains.   Christians seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place concerning this issue, because if we consider some of the bible to be hyperbole, then all of it comes into question and can be considered as such. We have no way of knowing what is hyperbole and what is not. But if they take it literally, then their bible reveals a god who is not at all "all-loving" as he orders the slaughter of innocent women and children. Hmmm.... If Christians disown the slaughter of the innocent Canaanites, they might as well disown the torture and murder of the innocent Jesus as well--perhaps that is hyperbole too. That is, if Christians claim the story of the slaughter of the Canaanites is merely "hyperbole"--then we can say the same thing about the supposed torture and death of Jesus on the cross, and his so-called "resurrection." Perhaps it is just hyperbole too--it never really happened.

Furthermore, according to Christians, Jesus used hyperbole many times, such as when he said "prayer moves mountains." We know that doesn't happen either. Perhaps it is also his use of hyperbole when he claims to be the son of god.  When Jesus said that "me and the father are one"--that too could just be hyperbole--as when I say that "me and my grandmother are one. "  I say this because my grandmother and I share the same philosophy--just as Jesus claimed that he shares the same philosophy with his father. But, it would not mean that I am my grandmother, nor that Jesus is God.

Nevertheless, WL Craig, whom I now label as the "king of strawmen, " (as that is his favorite fallacy) offers weak arguments that can easily be taken apart; but what sets him apart from other apologists is his rhetorical skills. He does not win debates on whether what he is arguing for is the truth or not--it is purely by rhetoric. Now, if Dawkins can be criticized for not being willing to defend his position--so can the apologists. To illustrate how hypocritical many so-called apologists for Jesus are, note what the Christian blogger "Wintery Knight" --the blogger that does not take critical comments on his blog--mentioned in a recent post:

"I don't mind that atheists think atheism is true, and that theism is irrational. That's their view, and they are entitled to hold it and speak it and teach it. But I think that Came is right to say that they should also be willing to defend it in public. Dawkins is clearly not willing to defend his views, and that tells me that he has no reasons to believe them."

Wintery Knight is a blogger who will NOT take comments against his own views, and edits comments to suit his fancy. In other words, he too does not defend his views against criticism. Talk about hypocrisy--but he is not the only one. There are quite a few Christian bloggers out there that are unwilling to post comments from people such as myself because I know how to take apart their arguments and make them look ridiculous. Some of them are Tom Gilson at "Thinking Christian", "Wintery Knight"--and my favorite, JW Wartick, at "Always Have a Reason." Now, there are a few, such as Bill Pratt at "Tough Questions Answered" and Ray Comfort at "Atheist Central" that still do take my comments, and I commend them for that, but for those that do not--they are no different than Dawkins and WL Craig. You see, Craig has also refused to debate certain scholars, as he will not take up the challenge of debating his former student, John Loftus over at "Debunking Christianity", because Craig knows that Loftus knows what he knows!!  Craig has no problem debating people he feels have less knowledge than he does, or weaker rhetorical skills, but Craig refuses to debate Loftus--why? Because he knows Loftus would make a fool out of him.  Craig claims he does not want to debate a former student--which, like his arguments, is just a weak excuse. Craig et al. are hypocrites and cowards, and have no business "defending" their faith against criticism--when they cannot take criticism.

As my mother said long ago--if the theists can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. I would debate Craig anytime, and I know I would make him look ridiculous. And to show I am not interested in the publicity, I would do it over the internet as a podcast--anonymously. Would Craig take up the challenge? If he has read my blog--he knows that it would be in his best interest not to take up the challenge because his weak arguments would be defeated.

Theists need to step up their game if they wish to keep up with scholars such as myself--because the cracks in their armor are showing, and I see feathers peeking through.

How I Became and Atheist, and Why Knowledge is a Threat to Christianity

As I perused the " Tough Questions Answered" blog, I found a post titled "Why Talk So Much About Atheism?"--which has compelled me to talk about it. The author of the post, Bill Pratt, contends that atheism is somewhat of an anomaly of academia, as he states: "...the percentages (of atheists) go way up for those who inhabit the highest levels in academia."

As an academic myself, I entered the academic world as a theist (Methodist), and eventually became an Ignostic Atheist via the study of World Religions, Christianity, Philosophy, and Logic. So why did this happen?  If Christianity made sense, it shouldn't have.  If Christianity made sense, the knowledge I gained should have made my faith stronger--but it didn't.  My "conversion" if you want to call it that, came via an "epiphany" I had while I was sitting in my car waiting for a light to change. I was a junior in college at the time, and knew little about my own faith when I heard something on the radio that "clicked"--and I knew that what my parents had taught me to believe about their god was more than likely bogus.  It took an angry driver behind me to bring me back to reality, and I then began to research the topic even further--beyond the classroom walls. I began perusing old bookstores, and university libraries in search of answers to "Tough Questions" and I found the answers to many of my questions in books that I still use to this day.  I began by studying Introduction to Old and New Testament texts used in many seminaries today, and then began exploring other more obscure texts that are not as widely known. I also made a point of studying with Mormons, JW's, Quakers, and members of other groups in order to get a better understanding.  I was shocked to eventually learn that many members of clergy are either agnostic or atheists themselves after going through seminary.

As a philosopher, I make a point of reading texts from various perspectives--for and against.  I found the following texts to be quite useful as they offer logical and historical perspectives rarely found in modern scholarship. These texts are, "Materialist Approaches to the Bible," God and the Gods-Myths of the Bible," "The Bible Unearthed," and "Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions"--which is my favorite as it compiles much of the knowledge found in various other texts into one.  God and the Gods-Myths of the Bible particularly interested me, as it offered explanations for the ORIGINAL texts of the bible--not the Humpty Dumpty translations most are familiar with. In one example found on page 55 of the book, the author, Walter Beltz, a historian at the University of Halle in Germany, explains how Zipporah, the wife of Moses cuts off the foreskin of her son and then offers it to Yahweh as a substitution for the sacrifice of her "first born" son--which was a common Jewish tradition, and not an anomaly. (Exodus 4:24-26) I was shocked to learn this, so I went to a Hebrew scholar who confirmed that what the book said about sacrifice was true. Now, most translations of the bible contain various additions and explanations used in an attempt to make sense of these passages. In the words of Walter Beltz:

In these two verses, Yahweh appears only once as a noun subject of masculine gender naturally, the masculine personal pronouns must refer either to him or to the son. They cannot refer to Moses, because there is no mention of him in the passage immediately preceding this one. There the topic being discussed is Pharaoh's first born, which obviously gave the narrator a cue to bring up this story. Hence, the meaning must be that Yahweh wished to take Moses' first-born son because the first-born male belonged to him by rights. He was entitled to the boy. Zipporah, his mother, circumcises her son-an old relic of the matriarchy-and touches the foreskin to Yahweh's genitals. This is the only way to make sense of her pronouncing the formula. "You are my bridegroom of blood," as she performs the act. For she is initiating Moses' child into a marriage with Yahweh, and he becomes Yahweh's child. Instead of the life of the boy, only a part of the penis is sacrificed. ...But devout readers were always scandalized by the anthropomorphic treatment of Yahweh, and tried to smooth over the offensive reference to his genitals by inserting the name of Moses. Elsewhere, however, old portions of biblical mythology do not shrink from anthropomorphizing Yahweh.

The original myth present in the passage unmistakably points to the fact that Yahweh, as an ancient fertility god, had a claim on the first-born males. In Crete and Phoenicia, boys were at one time sacrificed to the supreme goddess, after the priestesses had engaged in cultic intercourse with them (the 'sacred marriage') This story of Zipporah's touching the god's genitals with her child's foreskin and saying "You are my bridegroom of blood," fits in with such ancient notions." (God and the Gods-Myths of the Bible" p. 55-56)

When the Pew Forum did a survey on religious knowledge, college graduates were found to have more religious knowledge than other groups, and atheists know more about Christianity than most Christians do. This is why education is seen as a threat to the Christian church, as when we have the means and the knowledge to examine Christian dogma critically, it fails to measure up. Even early church fathers realized this, and it is why the bible was kept in Latin for centuries as a way to keep it out of the hands of lay people. It was only when the printing press was developed and the bible became more available that Christians had access to it, and even then, the British Cardinal Thomas Wolsey (1473-1530), foresaw the effect the printing press would have on Christianity, and said, "...if they did not destroy the press, the press would destroy them."

It is because I learned how to think critically and logically, and because of the information that was available to me that I became an Ignostic Atheist. I believe there are better explanations than saying "goddidit." Knowledge is power, and it is a means that allows us to sweep nonsense out of the way in order to see the truth more clearly.  Knowledge, and those that possess it are a threat to Christianity because they are able to illustrate effectively just how absurd Christian dogma truly is.

The Exodus, and Why it Did Not Happen as Depicted in the Bible

 

In the spirit of Passover, and the fact that Christian holidays such as Easter "borrowed" many of the elements of their beliefs from others, in this post I will argue that the best explanation for the Exodus, via Ockham's razor, is that it did not occur as depicted in the Old Testament, but is instead a story which was cobbled together from the stories of different groups, and was used to elevate the status of the Jewish kings, and to serve their political, economic, and social interests.

I will be looking at the Exodus from a historical materialist perspective, and will use historical and archeological evidence to support my arguments--unlike the traditional idealistic Christian perspective, which views the bible as the "words of God," in the strict and literal sense. Instead, I will be looking at the "conditions of production" of the Exodus story that explains why it was written.

Considering the Israelites were at one point in time, nomads and slaves, it makes logical sense that their kings (namely Solomon and Josiah) employed hyperbole to create scenarios that elevated their status. In fact, some of the earliest known written works in the bible are from 1 Kings 1 and 2, and 2 Sam 9:20--the narration of the succession of David. Scribes of kings are known to exaggerate claims of the rulers who employ them, and this too can be said for the writers of the bible in their efforts to elevate their status in the world. This is how the story of the Exodus evolved.