07/26/23 Biking & Listening

Biking is something else I both love and hate. It takes a lot of effort but does provide good exercise and most days over an hour to listen to a good book or podcast. I especially like having ridden.

Here’s my bike, a Rockhopper by Specialized. I purchased it November 2021 from Venture Out in Guntersville; Mike is top notch! So is the bike, and the ‘old’ man seat I salvaged from an old Walmart bike.

Here’s a link to today’s bike ride.


Something to consider if you’re not already cycling.

I encourage you to start riding a bike, no matter your age. Check out these groups:

Cycling for those aged 70+(opens in a new tab)

Solitary Cycling(opens in a new tab)

Remember,

Photo by Suzy Hazelwood on Pexels.com

I’m listening to Don’t Let Go by Harlan Coben

Amazon Abstract

FROM THE BESTSELLING AUTHOR AND CREATOR OF THE HIT NETFLIX DRAMA THE STRANGER

With unmatched suspense and emotional insight, Harlan Coben explores the big secrets and little lies that can destroy a relationship, a family, and even a town in this powerful new thriller.

Suburban New Jersey Detective Napoleon “Nap” Dumas hasn’t been the same since senior year of high school, when his twin brother Leo and Leo’s girlfriend Diana were found dead on the railroad tracks—and Maura, the girl Nap considered the love of his life, broke up with him and disappeared without explanation. For fifteen years, Nap has been searching, both for Maura and for the real reason behind his brother’s death. And now, it looks as though he may finally find what he’s been looking for. 

When Maura’s fingerprints turn up in the rental car of a suspected murderer, Nap embarks on a quest for answers that only leads to more questions—about the woman he loved, about the childhood friends he thought he knew, about the abandoned military base near where he grew up, and mostly about Leo and Diana—whose deaths are darker and far more sinister than Nap ever dared imagine.


Here’s a few photos from along my pistol route:

A biologist explains why ‘heartbeat laws’ are nonsensical

Here’s the link to this article.

Avatar photoby DR. ABBY HAFER

MAY 06, 2022

a biologist explains why heartbeat laws are nonsensical | heart cell and pulse line
Shutterstock/YouTube screenshot

Overview

The proliferation of anti-abortion ‘heartbeat laws’ cynically conflate the spontaneous pulsing of cardiac cells with the beating of a heart, and the beating of a heart with the presence of a soul. Such magical thinking belongs nowhere near the laws of a secular democracy

Reading Time: 5 MINUTES

A scientist is working in her lab, quietly culturing heart cells. She puts Petri dishes full of them into an incubator to grow. A few days later, she takes them out and inspects them under a microscope to see if they have multiplied as she wanted. 

As she innocently adjusts her scope, she sees—they are beating. What’s more, when she puts two of them near each other, they beat together! When she moves all of them together, they still beat together, in one great throbbing mass!  “IT’S ALIIIIVE!” she shrieks.


That scientist would be me. I didn’t really shriek, “It’s alive!” But I did see individual heart cells beating, cells that I had cultured, beating with no brain, nerves, organism, or even heart around them. They just contracted rhythmically—that is to say, they beat—all by themselves. 

Because that’s what heart cells do. 

Biologists sometimes have weird jobs. One summer, I worked in a lab that looked at how embryonic heart cells take up various chemicals. One of my jobs was to culture the heart cells— that is to say, grow them. I dissected embryonic chickens, took out the hearts, dissolved the connective tissue between the cells, and spread the cells out in Petri dishes along with the food and fluids they would need to be happy. Then I put them into incubators, hoping they would multiply.

After a few days, I took them out and checked them under a microscope to see if they were multiplying. And sometimes, when I looked at them, they were beating. The individual heart cells kind of looked like they were twinkling, with their little, individual contractions.

As for putting them together to see if they beat together, I didn’t actually do that. But other scientists have done so, and that’s exactly what they found: when cardiac muscle cells are placed together, they will beat together. It’s so well established that it’s common knowledge, written into textbooks. We know that they do it, and we know why they do it. Here’s a paragraph about this from the textbook Anatomy and Physiology:

If embryonic heart cells are separated into a Petri dish and kept alive, each is capable of generating its own electrical impulse followed by contraction.

It goes on to say:

When two independently beating embryonic cardiac muscle cells are placed together, the cell with the higher inherent rate sets the pace, and the impulse spreads from the faster to the slower cell to trigger a contraction.

In short, it is not mysterious, it is not magic. It’s biology doing what biology has evolved to do.

The anti-abortion movement’s cynical “heartbeat laws” are all manipulation, no science

There are many so-called “heartbeat laws” on the books in the United States at this time, laws that outlaw abortion after an embryonic “heartbeat” has been detected. Many others have been proposed. The most egregious current example is the law in Texas that states that a woman may not get an abortion after she has been pregnant for six weeks. Specifically, it bans abortion after cardiac activity is detectable. Other states are following suit as of this writing.

To most people, “cardiac activity” and “heartbeat” sound synonymous, and this mistaken assumption has been exploited by those who wish to deny women their right to an abortion. 

The assumption may be easy to make, but it is glaringly incorrect, as is illustrated by the narrative that began this article. It’s simple: heart cells beat all by themselves, entirely on their own. If an individual heart cell is alive, it contracts in a rhythmic manner—that is to say, it beats. “Cardiac activity” means that a few heart cells are alive and beating, not that a heart actually exists.  A true heartbeat, on the other hand, is, technically speaking, the beating of a heart. An actual complete heart, not a few cardiac muscle cells. A complete heart does not exist at six weeks’ gestation. 

To further illustrate just how independent a heart cell’s beating is from there being an actual living organism, consider the following two facts:

1) Beating heart cells need not come from an embryo. At Vienna University of Technology, descendants of stem cells called progenitor cells were induced to become heart cells in a laboratory, and they too beat on their own, in a Petri dish.

YouTube video

2) It is also possible for a person who is brain dead to still have a beating heart.

Heart and soul

If all of this seems spooky, it is largely because we incorrectly but understandably associate a beating heart with an intrinsic, even mystical life force; it is associated with the presence of a soul itself.

Ancient Egyptians and some ancient Greeks believed that the heart housed the soul, as well as our ability to think. Christianity adopted the idea that the heart is the seat of consciousness, intelligence, free personality, intrinsic knowledge of right and wrong, and a place over which God could have direct influence. These feelings continue in our culture to this day.  

But what we know, through science, is that the heart is a muscle that pumps blood throughout the body. We know that a heart can be transplanted from a dead person to someone else, and that a soul is not transplanted at the same time. We know that cardiac muscle cells will contract in a rhythmic manner, regardless of the state of the body around it, or even the existence of a body around it, or even the existence of a heart around it. 

The religious idea that the heart is the seat of the soul stalks the subject of abortion. In fact, in general, the religious concept of “ensoulment” has been the unspoken underpinning of the anti-abortion movement for decades.

The religious idea that the heart is the seat of the soul stalks the subject of abortion.

“Ensoulment” is the idea that there is a specific moment when a developing embryo is endowed with a soul. Once a divine soul is placed in an embryo, terminating that embryo is thought to constitute the murder of a divine soul.

The laws of a secular democracy should offer no place for magical thinking of this kind. When anti-abortionists ask “When does life begin?”, they are really asking, “When does life with a soul begin?” It should be noted that no one is arguing about whether or not the organism created through conception is alive.

The egg and sperm were alive. The parents were alive. All the ancestors back to the dawn of life on the planet were alive. Life is involved at every juncture before, during, and after conception. So the question “When does life begin?” regarding pregnancy is a nonsensical one. Once you realize this, you see that the question is a stand-in for ensoulment. 

“Cardiac activity” is likewise a stand-in for ensoulment. When such activity begins, it only means that some individual heart cells are alive. The sound is nothing more than the greatly-amplified rhythmic contracting of a collection of muscle cells that do not form a heart.

It needs to be stated in plain English: All anti-abortion fetal “heartbeat laws” are based on unscientific nonsense and should be abrogated. Cardiac muscle cells will contract on their own, even in a Petri dish, with no brain, no nervous system, no organism, and no heart attached to these cells. A “heartbeat” at six weeks’ gestation does not involve an actual heart. Further, muscle cells contracting are not the sign of a soul.

And regardless of the beliefs in the individual minds of citizens, the concept of a soul has no place in the laws of a secular democracy.

The Boaz Stranger–Chapter 8

I slept horribly. Every time I’d close my eyes, the current edition of the American Bar Association’s law journal would appear. On its cover was a picture of me in an orange jumpsuit. The caption underneath my photo was, “America’s Worst Attorney.” Apparently, the punishment for violating a lawyer’s duty of competence to his client was now a long prison sentence.

As the digital clock clicked to 4:30, I gave up. After showering, dressing, and eating a bowl of Raisin Bran cereal, I headed for the law school. No lawyer likes to be embarrassed. As I made the twenty-minute drive, I secretly hoped the New York legal eagle was only a sparrow.

By 6:30, I’d concluded Rob was smarter than I’d ever imagined. He had been correct to question whether I was a real attorney. My WESTLAW search had produced six cases that addressed the National Registry (officially named National Register of Historic Places), and eminent domain. Each case had wound up in federal court except one. I ignored it and concentrated on the other five. After reading two cases, I realized I had been wrong. Embarrassed or not, as an attorney, I had to follow the truth wherever it led.

The case whose facts were closest to the Hunt House was out of the seventh circuit (Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin). It originated in South Bend, Indiana in a state trial court but was quickly moved to federal court. The National Registry was the issue that gave the Feds jurisdiction. Ultimately, the property owner lost but the appeals court’s reasoning turned on the fact the real estate had once been a commercial warehouse.

I kept looking. One case I’d initially skipped now looked promising. It had originated in Macon, Georgia, which was part of the Eleventh Circuit. Alabama is also in this circuit. My interest was not because of the Court’s ultimate ruling. It was the attention it had given to a temporary injunction. What made the analysis so powerful was that it was controlling law. Since I hadn’t found a single case on my issue that had made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, I had to depend on a lower federal court’s ruling. Any other analysis and ruling on temporary injunctions could be used, but they would only be persuasive authority, not controlling. Of course, all federal circuits might think the same way on this issue, but I didn’t have the time, nor interest, to chase that rabbit.

However, I was curious enough to review the only case I’d found where a state appeal’s court had considered the National Registry’s effect on a local municipality’s eminent domain action against a private landowner. It originated in Dubois, Wyoming. The property was Twin Pines Lodge, on Highway 287, the heartbeat of downtown Dubois. It was built in 1913 and operated for years as a hotel. The thing I liked most about this case was the unquestioning viability of razing the Lodge and constructing a mega-mall, including three restaurants and forty other stores. But the learned Wyoming Supreme Court justices gave a long and inspiring opinion including two pages weighing the importance of the past and comparing it to expected profits in the future. History won. I particularly liked the last sentence of the paragraph addressed to the National Registry: “The National Register of Historic Places included Twin Pines Lodge for one simple reason: to preserve and protect our past. Economic progress is too high a price to pay to lose physical proof of the rough and tumultuous journey we’ve trod to get us where we are today.”

I printed a copy of Twin Pines Lodge vs. City of Dubois. It felt more than persuasive. I was ashamed to admit that all I had really wanted to find this morning was some legitimate way to slow down Judge Broadside’s ruling. For the first time, I realized the Hunt House was a national treasure. Losing it to another shopping center, one in existence simply to generate a few more sales tax dollars for the City’s till was clearly too high a price to pay. Even if the citizens of Boaz didn’t realize it.

But there was another issue I had to address before I could draft and move for temporary injunctive relief. I wasn’t a member of the Alabama Bar. Thankfully, each state had a procedure to resolve my problem. It’s called Pro hac vice. These Latin words mean, “for this occasion.” It is a legal term for adding an attorney to a case in a jurisdiction that does not license him, in a way the attorney does not commit the unauthorized practice of law.

I quickly searched the Alabama Bar’s website and wasn’t surprised by its rules. I had to associate with an attorney who was already a member in good standing with the Alabama State Bar. Then, that attorney had to file a verified application for my admission to practice. It was a lot to ask of another attorney. I’d need to find one who didn’t have a conflict with the City of Boaz, one who wouldn’t require me to travel to his office for a personal interview before he would agree to our association.

Thankfully, I already knew who I would call. And, even better, his office was in old downtown Boaz. Micaden Tanner was a high school classmate. Although we had not been close friends, I always sensed a mutual respect. I hadn’t seen him since graduation in 1972, but I had talked with him once. It was the year 2000 when I was working for the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. He had called to ask the name of the best Assistant U.S. attorney to talk with in the Civil Rights Division. We had promised each other to stay in touch. Promises we both had neglected. Until now.

Fortunately, I reached him on my first attempt. Unfortunately, I was running out of time before my 8:00 AM Torts class, and Micaden was ten minutes from having to depart for a motions docket in Calhoun County. After exchanging pleasantries, I went for the jugular. “I need to associate with a local attorney in a case against the City of Boaz.”

Before I could go further, he responded, “the Hunt House?” He didn’t pause for my acknowledgment. “The sons of bitches respect nothing or no one unless it lines their pockets.” I liked a straight shooter, even if I didn’t fully understand his bold statement.

I confirmed I needed authority to represent Rob and Rosa Kern in their defense of the Hunt House. “I’m hoping you don’t have a conflict.”

“No. Never. I’ve always represented the little guys, those who don’t have a chance in hell against the big boys. But I must warn you. How long has it been since you lived here?”

“Early August 1972, right before I moved to Charlottesville, Virginia. Why?”

“As long as you keep David and Goliath in mind, you’ll be okay.”

I didn’t question his analogy, since his secretary came in and announced his need to leave for Anniston.

“After I’m admitted, assuming Judge Broadside approves my application, I want to move for temporary injunction.”

Again, Micaden was quick to jump in. “I’ll have Tina email you the application. Complete and return it to me ASAP. I’ll have it on Judge Broadside’s desk by noon if you do your part. Talk later.” The line went dead without a goodbye. I too disliked chit-chat.

I grabbed my Prosser, Wade, and Schwartz tome and headed to my 1L Tort class. Mostly, 1L’s (first-year students) spend their time on the law school’s first floor, 2L’s on the second, and 3L’s on the third. Administration sandwiched my office between two smaller classrooms and was easily accessible to 3L’s and professors alike. Although I enjoyed teaching the more advanced classes, after Rachel died, I’d requested permission to teach introduction to torts. There was something special about witnessing a mental toddler transform into a hair-splitting adult. It was as beautiful as observing the caterpillar-to-cocoon-to-butterfly process.

After class and interacting with a couple of students, including answering a false imprisonment hypothetical, I returned to my office via the stairwell. Rachel would be proud.

It took less than half an hour to print the Pro hac vice application and return it to Micaden’s secretary. I halfway expected her to call with at least a clarification question or two. She did not.

I spent the rest of the morning with Lauren Araya, a 3L, having a problem with the essay she was writing for the Yale Law Journal, the student led publication.

At noon, I ate my sack lunch and closed my eyes. I semi-dozed twenty minutes before my iPhone alarm sounded. This practice had become valuable.

For the next three hours, behind a locked door, I read and graded case briefs written by my Appellate Advocacy students. Naturally, all 3L’s. The best students always impressed me with their ability to set out the Statement of Facts in narrative form.

At three-twenty, Gina tapped on my door and whispered she had an emergency. I took a break and learned her daughter had suffered a broken tooth during soccer practice.

I whisked her away right as Professor Stallings stuck his head inside my open doorway. As usual, he didn’t tarry. He stayed just long enough to learn I had called Connie Morgan but had to leave a message. I took the liberty of succinctly stating she might lead to another prospect.

At four fifteen, once again my iPhone sounded. This time, it was a phone call from Micaden’s office. I answered, assuming there was a problem. “Lee, is now a good time to talk.” I affirmed. “Okay, hold for Mr. Tanner.”

Tersely, he said: “Good news and bad news. Shit, I’m getting windy. Judge Broadside approved your application and is demanding we both appear at next Tuesday’s hearing.”

I felt woozy. I’m glad I’m not the fainting type. All along I had failed to consider real life law practice in the South. Why can’t Alabama judges make conference calls or even online video exchanges, especially with attorneys living a thousand miles away? “Gosh, are you kidding?” I already had my answer. Micaden wasn’t the kidding type.

“No. Be glad you’ve got a cushy teaching job. Judge Broadside is hell on wheels. It was your motion for temporary injunctive relief that raised his dander.”

“How did he know that? That motion hasn’t been drafted.”

“Trust me, it’s better I forewarned him. Why else would you be getting in the case? Shit, you have to do more than kiss the city attorney’s ass.”

Micaden had a point. I had nothing to say except thanks.

He quickly responded with, “Send me a copy of your draft motion. If possible, have it here early. Tomorrow.” The line went dead. My high school classmate certainly wasn’t a chit-chatter, but he clearly wasn’t passive.

Damn, what had I gotten myself into?

“Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds”

Here’s the link to this article.

STEVE SCHMIDT

JUL 23, 2023

The “Gadget,” the first atomic bomb, explodes in Los Alamos, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945 (Corbis via Getty Images)

“Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” — J. Robert Oppenheimer

‘Oppenheimer’ is an extraordinary and stunning movie. Seventy-eight years have passed since the Trinity test site outside of Los Alamos, New Mexico. It marked the beginning of a new epoch in history, where mankind harnessed the powers of the gods and became capable of triggering Armageddon. 

Matt Damon plays General Leslie Groves, the architect of the Manhattan Project. He perfectly captures 2023 America’s lassitude towards the weapons that remain poised to destroy human civilization. Here is what Damon said:

How did I forget about this? It’s like the Cold War ended and my brain played a trick on me and said, ‘OK, let’s put that away, you don’t have to worry about that anymore’ — which is absurd.

But as soon as Russia invaded Ukraine “suddenly overnight it became the most important thing for us all to think about again.

Damon is one of the greatest actors of his generation, and among the most thoughtful as well. His comments aren’t an expression of vapidity or disinterest, but rather a spot-on assessment of how the overwhelming number of Americans think about the weapons that can destroy 10,000 years of human civilization and history in an instant.

I’ve written about this subject before. General Douglas MacArthur was the first person to speak directly to the existential issues raised by the dawn of the nuclear weapons age. They remain dire and true 78 years later.

The winds of catastrophe are stirring

STEVE SCHMIDT

·

JAN 31

The winds of catastrophe are stirring

There are a confluence of dangerous events occurring that have the potential to trigger global catastrophe at the end of the lifespans of the generation that endured human civilization’s greatest one. They are nearly all gone. Eleven years from now, it is estimated that there will be less than 1,000 American veterans left out of 16 million that served in the Second World War. Today, there are slightly more than 100,000 alive from a war that killed 400,000 Americans, and defined an era that came to be known as the “American century.”

Read full story

Even though nuclear weapons have not been deployed in combat since 1945 does not mean that they no longer exist. There are thousands of them under the control of the following nations: United States, Russia, China, UK, France, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and India. The most nuclear arsenal in the world belongs to the United States, and it consists of three elements. The United States can deliver its nuclear weapons to any spot on Earth via airplane, land-based intercontinental ballistic missile and submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missile. The weapons are under the command and control of the US Armed Forces, and can be launched on orders from the president of the United States. Since Harry Truman, the following Americans have held the unilateral power to destroy the world: Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden. One of these men is unlike the others.

Upgrade to paid

During the hectic days after January 6, Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously queried Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley about the security of America’s nuclear arsenal. Milley responded that he had everything under control. Overwhelmingly, the American media and people yawned at the news, and believed what Milley told Pelosi — which is absolutely not true. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff isn’t part of the decision-making process when it comes to Armageddon. The president alone has that authority.

Everything in the American government is designed to move slowly — except one thing. The launch of the nuclear weapons are the exception. Should the president give the order, it will be carried out by highly-trained professionals who will not hesitate to execute it. In fact, right now, in this second, they are at their duty posts at the bottom of a silo, under the seas or in the air, awaiting the order.

What Matt Damon said is true for most of us in 2023 because no sane society would choose Donald Trump as the person to hold the power of extinction. Yet, we did.

The world came extremely close to nuclear war in October of 1962. Perhaps the only reason it didn’t was the profound wisdom, steeliness and courage of John Kennedy. Today, we have replaced wisdom with a deluded moral infancy and addlement that makes a mockery of the life and death issues that rest on the president’s desk.

We live in a cynical time in which there is so much evil operating in plain sight all over the world. Yet, after 78 years of having the power to destroy the planet, mankind has not pulled the trigger. It is a blink of an eye and an eternity all at once. What lies ahead is unknown, but it will be dangerous and deadly. What keeps us safe is judgement and morality. When that disappears all that is left is the mushroom cloud.

Why have we stopped believing these weapons exist — like all weapons — to be used?

‘Oppenheimer’ helps us remember the world in which we live. I recommend that you go to see it.

07/25/23 Biking & Listening

Biking is something else I both love and hate. It takes a lot of effort but does provide good exercise and most days over an hour to listen to a good book or podcast. I especially like having ridden.

Here’s my bike, a Rockhopper by Specialized. I purchased it November 2021 from Venture Out in Guntersville; Mike is top notch! So is the bike, and the ‘old’ man seat I salvaged from an old Walmart bike.

Here’s a link to today’s bike ride.


Something to consider if you’re not already cycling.

I encourage you to start riding a bike, no matter your age. Check out these groups:

Cycling for those aged 70+(opens in a new tab)

Solitary Cycling(opens in a new tab)

Remember,

Photo by Suzy Hazelwood on Pexels.com

I’m listening to Don’t Let Go by Harlan Coben

Amazon Abstract

FROM THE BESTSELLING AUTHOR AND CREATOR OF THE HIT NETFLIX DRAMA THE STRANGER

With unmatched suspense and emotional insight, Harlan Coben explores the big secrets and little lies that can destroy a relationship, a family, and even a town in this powerful new thriller.

Suburban New Jersey Detective Napoleon “Nap” Dumas hasn’t been the same since senior year of high school, when his twin brother Leo and Leo’s girlfriend Diana were found dead on the railroad tracks—and Maura, the girl Nap considered the love of his life, broke up with him and disappeared without explanation. For fifteen years, Nap has been searching, both for Maura and for the real reason behind his brother’s death. And now, it looks as though he may finally find what he’s been looking for. 

When Maura’s fingerprints turn up in the rental car of a suspected murderer, Nap embarks on a quest for answers that only leads to more questions—about the woman he loved, about the childhood friends he thought he knew, about the abandoned military base near where he grew up, and mostly about Leo and Diana—whose deaths are darker and far more sinister than Nap ever dared imagine.


Here’s a few photos from along my pistol route:

The Eccentric, Inflated, Dangerous Theology of John’s Gospel

Here’s the link to this article.

By David Madison at 7/21/2023

Read it and weep—and get over it

Here’s a book title that would dumbfound many devout churchgoers: This Tragic Gospel: How John Corrupted the Heart of Christianity. The author, Dr. Louis A. Ruprecht, Jr., states that the author of John intended his gospel to replace the earlier gospels (p. 180), and he refers to the “howling conflict between Mark and John…” (p. 13) Burton Mack wrote: “What a somersault, turning the page between Luke’s life of Jesus and the Gospel of John” (p. 175, Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth). Peter Brancazio notes that John’s gospel “will come as an astonishing surprise. Here the reader will encounter a radically different portrait of Jesus, both in terms of his message and his person” (p. 373, The Bible from Cover to Cover: How Modern-Day Scholars Read the Bible).

Surveys have shown that church folks don’t make a habit of reading the gospels—and certainly not studying the gospels, analyzing them critically. There are so many other options for entertainment. It’s common for the devout to accept the idealized version of Jesus promoted by the church, and there is special fondness for the gospel of John, e.g., 3:16, “God so loved the world…”  and 14:2: “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.” Yes, heaven awaits, as this quaint King James Version rendering assures the faithful. I have often challenged believers to read all of Mark’s gospel in one sitting, take a break, then do the same with John’s gospel. Gee, that would mean two or three hours of Bible reading! But the most exhausting part of this exercise would be the discovery of how differently Jesus is depicted in these two gospels. What’s going on? 

The author of John’s gospel apparently felt that the earlier writers got the story wrong—and he wanted to set the record straight. But, alas, this author was not a historian. He was a theologian who created his version of the Jesus story late in the first century or early in the second, many decades after the death of Jesus. He got carried away, hence my title for this article, suggesting that his theology was eccentric, inflated, and dangerous.  

Eccentric

No Baptism of Jesus

In John’s gospel, Jesus is not baptized. Since his divine Jesus had been present at creation (more about this later), there was no need for him to be baptized for the remission of sins. Matthew was also bothered by this, so when he copied Mark’s text, he said that John the Baptist himself didn’t like the idea of baptizing Jesus. Matthew added Jesus-script: “Let it be so now, for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). In other words, let’s do it for show. In John’s gospel, Jesus doesn’t set foot in the water. The Baptist is there to proclaim that Jesus in the “lamb of God who takes way the sins of the world” (John 1:29).

No Parables in the Teachings of Jesus

In Mark 4:10-12 we find the bizarre Jesus-script in which he claims that he taught in parables to prevent people from repenting and being forgiven. In Mark 4:34, we read that he taught only in parables. It seems that the author of John’s gospel was determined to show this was wrong. Instead of teaching in parables, we find long Jesus monologues found in none of the other gospels. 

There is no Eucharist at the Last Supper

In John’s presentation of this episode, Jesus washes the feet of the disciples—that’s the primary event (chapter 13). There is no mention of eating the bread as a symbol of Jesus’ body, and nothing about wine being his blood of the new covenant. However, late in chapter 6, which begins with the feeding of the Five Thousand, we find the especially ghoulish text about the importance of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood. More about this later too. 

There is little ethical teaching in John

This theologian-author was mainly concerned to present Jesus as the key to gaining eternal life. While Matthew added the Sermon on the Mount when he copied Mark’s text—and Luke modified the Sermon—John left it out altogether. And there’s a touch of irony here. In John 8 we find the famous story of the woman “taken in adultery,” whom the religious leaders are so eager to have stoned to death. They bring her to Jesus for his opinion on what to do. “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). But this story, which is commonly taken as an illustration of Jesus’ compassion, was not in the original text of John’s gospel. In some manuscripts, it turns up in Luke 21. There is nothing whatever by which to verify that it is an authentic story about Jesus.

John changed the day of the crucifixion—and Jesus’ attitude 

One of John’s theological themes is that Jesus was “the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” Thus it was crucial for him that Jesus die at the same time that lambs were killed for the Passover meal. The other gospels present Jesus having the Passover meal with his disciples that evening. And it was unthinkable for John that Jesus wasn’t the perfect divine being throughout the ordeal of the crucifixion. The other three gospels indicate that a man was picked out of the crowd, Simon of Cyrene, to carry the cross. In John 19:17 we read that Jesus carried the cross himself. In Mark’s gospel, the last words of Jesus were, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” John would have none of that; when Jesus breathed his last, he simply said, “It is finished” — “then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30).  

Inflated Theology

John chapter one sets the tone

Please read and ponder carefully John 1:1-18. Verse 14 is perhaps most famous: “And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.” We find this remarkable claim at the opening, vv. 1-3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.” The other gospel writers positioned Jesus as the son of god. In Mark’s gospel this was announced by a voice from the sky when Jesus was baptized. Matthew and Luke grafted onto their Jesus story an idea borrowed from other religions, that Jesus had been conceived by a god. 

John had succumbed big time to cult fanaticism. He claims that Jesus had been present at creation, indeed nothing “came into being” without the participation of Jesus. The Galilean peasant preacher has disappeared under layers of theology. Any reader today must ask—curiosity must kick in: how did he know this? Why should anyone trust the ideas that were bouncing around inside his head? So many theologians of very different faiths have made exaggerated claims about their gods, confident, of course, that their followers will be convinced, i.e., be fooled. 

The contrived Lazarus story

This spectacular episode is found only in John’s gospel. How did the other gospel writers miss it? Please read and ponder John 11:1-44. The most famous text in the story is vv. 25-26: “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.” There can be little doubt that this is the purpose of the story—to stress again that Jesus is the key to living forever. Nor can there be any doubt that the story is contrived, given vv. 14-15: “Then Jesus told them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead. For your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.’” Jesus was glad he wasn’t there? Are churchgoers really okay with this? Would Lazarus himself have said, “Sure, let’s do this so you can score points”? 

Don’t miss the magic spell that Jesus uses here, v. 43: it’s a voice activated resurrection: “…he cried with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out!’” How in the world is eternal life proved by such an event? We are told nothing else about Lazarus, namely that he died again at some point. And so did all those dead people who—so we’re told in Matthew 27:52-53 — came back to life and walked around Jerusalem on the first Easter morning. Clearly Luke knew this problem had to be avoided with Jesus, so in Acts 1 he says that Jesus disappeared above the clouds to join god in the sky. That never happened…so newly alive Jesus remained on earth, and died again as well. 

John 6: 53-57, theology reaches a low point

This chapter opens with Jesus feeding a crowd of 5,000 people. One of the disciples noticed a boy who had five barley loaves and two fish—from which Jesus, again working his magic—produced enough food for everyone. The next day he advised those whom he’d fed: “Do not work for the food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you” (v. 27). We’re getting closer to perhaps the worst text in the New Testament, vv. 53-57: 

“So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.’” 

If Christians heard these words shouted by a deranged street preacher, they’d cross the street, run in the other direction. The author of John’s gospel was so absorbed in his version of the Jesus cult that he was okay advocating this grotesque idea. His religion embraced magic potions, i.e., eating flesh, drinking blood that belongs to a god. But when you’re deep into the cult, this no longer causes offense. Over the centuries, the ecclesiastical bureaucracy promoted this ancient superstition relentlessly. It became part of ritual—to the ridiculous extent of making a big deal of First Communion, i.e., kids are allowed to eat Jesus for the first time. I often wonder: when are Christians going to snap out of it?    

John 14-17

Anyone who decides to read this gospel nonstop will find these chapters especially tedious—a great stretch of cult theobabble: Jesus and god are one. You’d better sign on, or else, e.g. 15:6: “Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.” Any curious reader will want to know: why are these chapters missing from the other gospels? Devout scholars, who argue—without evidence— that the gospels derive from eyewitness accounts, have to be stumped that all these words of Jesus said to the disciples are missing from the earlier gospels. John seems to have followed the ancient practice of making up speeches for holy heroes. Richard Carrier, after reviewing so many of the fabrications found in this gospel, concluded: “John has thus run wild with authorial gluttony, freely changing everything and inventing whatever he wants. By modern standards, John is lying” (On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, p. 491).   

Dangerous Theology

Religious fanaticism has been fueled by scripture. Promising that people who don’t believe will be “thrown into the fire and burned” encourages violence. Two verses after the beloved John 3:16, we find this warning: “…those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” And at the end of the chapter: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life but must endure God’s wrath.” Through the centuries, Christian zealots have gone to war and burned people at the stake; these hateful verses in John’s gospel provide the justification. 

There has been a lot of commentary as well on the role this gospel has played in fueling antisemitism. The Wikipedia article on this include a section on the fourth gospel: “The Gospel of John is the primary source of the image of ‘the Jews’ acting collectively as the enemy of Jesus, which later became fixed in Christian minds.” Perhaps the worst
text is John 8:44, Jesus in conversation with the Jews: “You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires.” Hector Avalos has pointed out that this verse ended up on Nazi road signs (in his essay, “Atheism Was Not the Cause of the Holocaust,” in John Loftus’ anthology, The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, p. 378).

Devout believers who are so sure that the Bible is the Good Book have a lot of explaining to do when the discussion turns to John’s gospel. This author—as Carrier notes—by modern standards, did a lot of lying, and in the process, as Louis Ruprecht maintains, “corrupted the heart of Christianity.”

David Madison was a pastor in the Methodist Church for nine years, and has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. He is the author of two books, Ten ToughProblems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith, now being reissued in several volumes, the first of which is Guessing About God (2023) and Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Word(2021). The Spanish translation of this book is also now available. 

His YouTube channel is here. He has written for the Debunking Christianity Blog since 2016.

The Cure-for-Christianity Library©, now with more than 500 titles, is here. A brief video explanation of the Library is here

The Boaz Stranger–Chapter 7

The house was hot when I arrived home. I walked to the thermostat in the den: eighty degrees. Sophia, no doubt. The pleasant and trustworthy Hispanic woman had been our housekeeper for over ten years. Rachel had met her at school and determined she was the hardest working of the high school’s four custodians, and with her large family, was interested in a little extra money. The only thing negative, if that’s what you call it, was that the polite, shy woman was extremely cold natured.

From the beginning, we had granted her permission to turn up the central heat. Apparently today, she had forgotten to return the setting to its usual sixty-eight degrees. One would think dusting and vacuuming, along with all the other chores Sophia completed every Tuesday, would keep her body toasty warm. I opened a can of Chicken Noodle Soup and set it to simmer while I walked to the master and changed clothes. Jogging shorts and a tee-shirt were proper attire for the tropical weather.

I let my laptop boot-up while my dinner finished warming. I also dialed Rosa’s cell phone (Rob hated them). No answer. I left a message requesting a callback tonight if convenient. I suspect they found a Baptist church in the back hills of New York or Pennsylvania that was holding an all-week revival. Of course, this was just a guess, but certainly not out of the question.

Since Rachel died, I had abandoned my desk in the master and used the table in the breakfast nook for household business, including online bill paying, and responding to personal emails. The latter had dwindled to a small trickle, my sister Kyla notwithstanding. Mainly, I used my laptop on the weekends to review the coming week’s lesson plans and to read relevant law. Law, law, law. I guess I shouldn’t feel so guilty when I occasionally spent time at the law school on personal business.

I poured my soup and crumbled some crackers. Unsurprisingly, an email from Kyla was waiting. Ashamedly, I almost didn’t open it. For the past two weeks, all she wanted to talk about was Harding Hillside (Mom’s idea from the 50s when her and Dad bought the farm), plans for a large garden next spring, and a growing fetish for Anglo-Nubian goats. I guess a forty-plus year executive had earned the right to “return to nature,” as Kyla described her in-progress transformation. Apparently, she had done well for herself financially because she had paid me $125,000 cash for my share of Harding Hillside after Mom and Dad died. My one-year younger sister could afford a few Nubians.

“Good evening to my favorite brother.” Kyla’s email had arrived ten minutes before I’d driven into the driveway. She had picked up where she had left off in her Saturday correspondence: a barrage of reasons I should fly to Alabama and stay with her over the upcoming Thanksgiving weekend. The main reason was to get me away from New Haven and away from 58 Ansonia Road in particular, since time was fast-approaching the one-year anniversary of Rachel’s suicide. Kyla had ended her plea with an argument that I should be the one who reviewed and inspected Dad’s clothes and personal items to determine what goes to Goodwill and what travels to New Haven.

The subject of Kyla’s second paragraph never failed to sicken me in a way nausea never had. It was Kyle Bennett’s 1969 disappearance. She referenced an article in today’s Sand Mountain Reporter (I wouldn’t receive the Tuesday edition until tomorrow at the earliest; probably Thursday). I clicked on a photo Kyla had taken of the brief article. Seeing Kyle sitting in front of a white background in his football jersey carried me back to the moment after the parade, the moment we’d separated and I’d gone home, and he’d gone on to what I now believe was his death.

I read how twin brother Kent was upping his reward offer to half-a-million dollars and that he, with the City of Boaz, was planning a memorial of sorts, an event to honor the life of young Kyle. The date surprised me. Black Friday, the Friday after Thanksgiving, the twenty-seventh. It was to be held at Old Mill Park and would feature songs by Mountain Top Trio and long-delayed eulogies from a few of Kyle’s closest friends. Kent had located the three founders of the once-famous band that had formed in the eighth grade. Until his death, Kyle had been their business manager and events coordinator.

I ate another spoonful of soup and closed my eyes, considering how I felt about traveling to Alabama and attending Kyle’s memorial service. I recalled the decision I’d made a year ago. Kent and the City had attempted this event last year, on the fiftieth anniversary of Kyle’s disappearance. That was before the completion of Old Mill Park. The city had arranged the use of the football field, but for several reasons, including Kent’s emergency trip to one of his plants in Japan, the planning had evaporated. My decision last year not to attend had only added to the guilt I always felt. I decided I was halfway open to attending when the house phone rang.

It was Sophia apologizing profusely for leaving the heat set so high. I told her not to worry. I thanked her for washing my bedclothes and for, as always, making the house smell so clean. “It’s my secret spray.” She said in broken English, although she’d lived in America for over twenty years. Sophia also apologized for losing my place in my book. At first, I thought about the Lawrence Block novel laying closed on my nightstand with bookmark inserted. After two more sentences, I gathered she was referring to Rachel’s diary, the one I had left open, face-down on the coffee table. I had forgotten to hide it this morning before leaving for work. Sophia said it had closed when it fell to the floor, and she didn’t know what to do. Again, I told her not to worry about it. I recalled Rachel saying Sophia could barely read.

I stored my bowl and spoon in the sink and checked on the diary. I returned to my laptop and Kyla’s email. After writing a long paragraph on the therapeutic benefits of closure (her subtle argument for me to travel to Boaz), she referred to another article, one in today’s Huntsville Times I could access via their website. The title, “There’s More than One Way to Skin a Cat,” showed it might be a funny story about a young boy or girl overcoming a speech impediment or outsmarting a playground bully, or a newly discovered Amazonian method of preparing a wildcat for boiling. But I was wrong. And shocked.

I didn’t visit the website but read Kyla’s abbreviated summary instead. The Times investigative reporter had assisted an associate with the Tennessee Sentinel in uncovering a scheme between Knoxville’s mayor and two councilmen, and the developer of Rylan’s, an expensive thirty-store shopping center in the heart of downtown. The scheme involved an elaborate kickback plot. “Wholly unfounded,” was the response from the lawyers for Ray Archer, the mayor, and councilmen. “The evidence will vindicate our clients.” Oh yeah, I bet that’s the truth. Ray’s coattail had gotten caught up in criminal conduct. No surprise there.

I chose not to think about Ray Archer except to wish him a future in prison. Instead, I read Kyla’s last paragraph. It was another long one.

It was almost a blow-by-blow accounting of Lillian Archer’s morning visit. The word ‘scheme’ returned to the forefront of my mind. Kyla had always liked Lillian more than Rachel. Of course, sis had never said this in so many words, but she didn’t have to. I can recall Kyla’s advice to me as we sat next to each other in the Boaz High School auditorium during our Baccalaureate service. “You need to ask Lillian to marry you. Long distance is a relationship killer.” By this time, the University of Virginia had granted me a full academic scholarship, and Lillian had committed to pursuing her dream of becoming a professional cheerleader. She had decided a few months earlier she was going to try out for the Alabama Crimson Tide cheer squad.

Lillian had liked the goats and Kyla’s new front porch swing. In fact, over a Tuna-salad lunch, the wife of Ray Archer had asked about me and whether my sister knew if I was coming to Kyle’s memorial. I must admit; it was good to hear, albeit secondhand, that the beautiful Lillian Bryant, my high school girlfriend of almost two years, had admitted she had made a big mistake in choosing Ray over me.

***

I didn’t tarry thinking about Lillian, given my overwhelming guilt at failing to protect the two most important people in my life: Kyle and Rachel. I sure didn’t need to add to the pile by fantasizing, albeit honorably, about the wife of Ray Archer.

Now, to Rachel’s diary. After deciding against reading them chronologically, I made a quick trip to the basement, returning with ROME. This one was after Rachel’s overdose, the period from April 25, 2019, through November 27, 2019. I sat in my Lazy Boy and flipped to the very last page. It was odd Rachel had written her last entry the day she hung herself. She had been rather terse: “I’m tired of living and hiding my past.”

I read and reread the words a dozen times, yielding nothing but a sense of failure and awareness that I could not give Rachel the peace and hope she deserved. A better person would have been capable of protecting his wife from anything and everything, especially her past. For a second, I became angry. The past. So what? Many people have horrible pasts but live fulfilling lives. It reminded me I was about to embark on a journey to learn about other women who had experienced late-term abortions. What was it about Rachel’s teenage abortion that kept her mind so shackled? It seemed Christian beliefs made this chain around her neck so much worse. Ironic. Wasn’t Christianity all about forgiveness? Yet Rachel, the one who was so open about her faith and Jesus’ promise she would spend eternity in Heaven, struggled mightily. Maybe she open-armed believed Jesus had forgiven her for all her sins yet could not forgive herself.

Rachel spent the first ten days following her failed suicide attempt at Yale New Haven Psychiatric Hospital. The impressive facility was seven miles from home and a mile and a half from the law school. I had spent every hour the staff would allow at Rachel’s bedside.

After they discharged her, Rosa and Kyla moved in. Until now, reading Rachel’s words, I thought the two-week period was happy and helpful. “I know they mean well, but they are visual reminders of my past.” This statement ended Rachel’s May 16th entry.

The following day, Kyla and Rosa drove away after Rachel insisted she was fine, needed some space, and had a duty to her students (Rachel never returned to teaching). Somehow, my dear wife convinced her mother and sister-in-law that she had learned her lesson.

The next entry was three pages, the longest I’d read so far, including last night. Rachel was reliving a nightmare. Below, I summarize what she had written.

After leaving Boaz at the end of 1969, the plan had been for Rachel and her family to return in two years to the Hunt House for another furlough. That had changed when Randy had moved to New Hampshire to attend the infamous Phillip Exeter prep school (its alumni include people like Mark Zuckerberg, David Eisenhower, Jay Rockefeller, and eighteenth-century Daniel Webster). This would be Randy’s ninth grade year. Rachel’s interest and ultimate decision to move to Charlottesville to attend the University of Virginia also played a role in two things.

One was Rob and Rosa’s decision to skip furlough and move to Taiwan. The second was their decision to lease the Hunt House to Barbara McReynolds and allow her to convert the historic home into a bed-and-breakfast.

What made me question last night’s conclusion that Rachel had been joking about hiding Ray Archer’s pistol, was a statement buried in the final paragraph of the May 27, 2019, entry: “I wish I had somehow traveled to Boaz to better secure the pistol, but Dad had bought my airline tickets and even more important, controlled my allowance. I simply didn’t have the funds. But maybe that’s like a lot of things I worry about that never happen. I doubt Barbara will ever have a reason to notice the board above the doorway at the top of the rear stairwell.”

I almost returned to the basement to grab BERLIN. I suspected it contained additional details concerning the hidden pistol since the time frame included the early January 1970 travel and the family’s first six months of living in Hong Kong.

But I stayed put and questioned why Rachel would write about something that happened so long ago. She was recovering from her overdose and what would naturally be a traumatic ten days in a psych ward. Now, looking back, I wondered if journaling was a way to convince herself she needed to get it all out one final time and finally forgive herself (not only for her abortion but, damn, for obstructing justice). Of course, it is uncertain whether Rachel ever forgave herself. What seems likely is she never could forget. Why else would she hang herself less than six months after her first failed suicide attempt?

Somehow, I fell asleep pondering a single question. A vibrating cell phone awakened me at 10:30. It was Rosa.

“Hello” stumbled from my lips.

“Sorry to call so late. I hope I didn’t wake you.”

“That’s okay. Can you put your phone on speaker where I can talk to you and Rob?” I’d much rather talk with my mother-in-law.

“I’m listening.” Rob responded, gruff as ever. They were a step ahead of me.

I spent at least ten minutes summarizing my legal research and the details of my phone call to the Clerk’s office. My in-laws were unaware of next Tuesday’s hearing. Rob accused the city and the court of conspiring against him. He had a few choice words for Judge Broadside. I tried to convince Rob (Rosa seemed willing to do whatever I suggested) his best option was to take the half-million dollars. I confirmed he had verified the value with a local appraiser. After Rob cooled down and the conversation crawled to silence, I expressed my sympathy and apologized for not being able to do more.

That’s when Rob asked an embarrassing question. “What about our house being a national treasure?” I admitted to myself that I had failed to consider the Hunt House and the National Historic Registry. That issue, an exception to typical eminent domain law, was missing from all the cases I’d read. Something else I kept to myself. I had only read Alabama law.

“I’m not sure if that applies to your case, but I’ll check on it tomorrow.” I said, feeling like a D level law student.

“You do that.” I could see Rob waving his hands in frustration. He must have stepped away from Rosa’s phone, but I clearly discerned his words, “and he calls himself an attorney.”

Rosa apologized for Rob’s comment and behavior. We exchanged a friendly salutation and said our goodbyes. Before I could return my iPhone to the end table, she called again and said she meant to tell me that Rob had spent $250 consulting with a New York attorney. One that Randy somehow found. The man, the New York legal eagle, had advised Rob to use the Hunt House’s historic status as a defense. He said that at a minimum it would throw a wrench into the court’s timetable.

Again, Rosa and I said goodbye. I sat dumbfounded and shook my head sideways. No wonder I stopped practicing law almost twenty years ago. The pressure of being thorough, of being right, was relentless when the lawyer has a client’s livelihood or life on the line.

The winds of catastrophe are stirring

Here’s the link to this article.

STEVE SCHMIDT

JAN 31, 2023

There are a confluence of dangerous events occurring that have the potential to trigger global catastrophe at the end of the lifespans of the generation that endured human civilization’s greatest one. They are nearly all gone. Eleven years from now, it is estimated that there will be less than 1,000 American veterans left out of 16 million that served in the Second World War. Today, there are slightly more than 100,000 alive from a war that killed 400,000 Americans, and defined an era that came to be known as the “American century.”

During it, the United States became the most powerful nation in world history, and the guarantor of the international order that emerged in the aftermath of the destruction of the Axis powers. Since then, the world has seen the greatest expansions of prosperity and freedom in the annals of human history. Though there remains great injustice and inequality there has never been a comparable 80 year period of progress — ever.  The expansion of human rights and dignity, democracy, international cooperation coupled with stunning scientific, technological and medical advances are astonishing when judged against the sweep of human history. The pace of progress, change and the disruptions that come with it are continuing to quicken. They have have taken us to the brink of a new age of artificial intelligence and powerful machines that will be able to think, decide, act, and perhaps kill. We live in an era in which the genetic foundation of human beings can be altered in a laboratory, and where space will become a frontier for economic development and exploitation. 

The United States has been a clumsy and unwise hegemon at times. It has blundered and made costly errors that include interference in the sovereign affairs of too many countries with a heavy hand and three tragic wars — in both Vietnam and Iraq, which were wars of choice, and one in Afghanistan, which was a war of necessity that drifted into an experiment, and then defeat.

Yet, for nearly 80 years the United States has played a singular role, despite all of its many flaws, in holding back an inexorable tide that has risen higher across each century of human existence. It is a tide of death and suffering caused by war. 

There are two generations of Americans that have led the United States since 1961. Joe Biden is the only member of the “silent” generation to reach the White House and the first president in history to take back power from a younger generation — the “baby boomers,” whose parents were part of the generation born between 1901 and 1927.

Generationally, those Americans were part of a cohort that stands out. They are unique among the named generations that are inevitably shaped by the seismic events that define epochs of history, cultural transformations and war. 

Their children are the “baby boomers,” who were defined by the 1960s, the Vietnam War, civil rights movement, peace movement, assassinations and Watergate. They were the largest generation in American history. The “millennial” generation eclipsed them in size and dwarf the younger generations named “Z” and “Alpha.” There is only one American generation that is called “greatest.”

 The “greatest” generation was the name of a book that told the story of America’s oldest living generation by the legendary Tom Brokaw, NBC Nightly News anchor and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The name stuck. It became the moniker of an entire generation that included within their numbers plenty of arch segregationists. Yet, it fit because the events that defined their lifetimes included the greatest economic crisis in world history, the greatest war in world history, the greatest rebuilding in world history, the greatest economic expansion in world history and the most sustained era of global peace in world history. The Second World War remains the greatest catastrophe in human history. As an event, it stands at the edge of living experience and history. Soon there will be no eyewitnesses to the landing beaches, concentration camps, naval battles and air war left. There will be no living humans who are devoted to making sure there is no catastrophe that exceeds what happened to humanity in the 1930s and 1940s. 

There are two facts of this moment that are indisputable. 

Upgrade to paid

Upgrade to paid

First, the United States is burdened for the first time since secession with a political party that is utterly, fundamentally, and absolutely incapable of governing. It is a hive of corruption, madness, malice, incompetence, grift, fraud and irredeemable dishonesty. It is led by a rogues’ gallery of unfit, self-interested, proudly ignorant, and despicable cowards, who have abandoned every previously stated principle and piety with acts of servility, cowardice, arrogance, duplicity and submission.

Second, the 15th century was deadlier than the 14th, as the 19th century was deadlier than the 18th, 17th and 16th. The momentum of human suffering and death was driven by the Industrial Revolution through the birth of the atomic age, and the dawn of an era in which mankind possessed the power to cause its own extinction and trigger its own Armageddon.

The 20th century cannot be forgotten because it was so lethal and demonstrated the savagery of which human beings are capable. It was a century of unequalled blood thirstiness and madness during which the greatest horrors and crimes ever recorded were committed. When it ended, two nuclear powers stood at the brink of destruction for 45 long years. They fought against each other in vicious proxy wars all over the world, but the deadly momentum of warfare that killed more people in the next war than the last was held back. Ultimately, the Soviet regime, built on the principles of totalitarianism, crumbled against the superior system led by the United States. There was even a book that proclaimed we had arrived at the “end of history.” Francis Fukuyama, its author, was celebrated and acclaimed. Today, it looks like a boast reminiscent of the arrogance of the White Star Line that played along with the hyped rhetoric that declared, “Not even God himself could sink this ship.” The collapse of the Berlin Wall was so sudden that it took on the trappings of the miraculous during the moment of excitement, liberation and possibility. Perhaps the most stunning achievement since its collapse might be the fact that for multiple living generations it seems like it never existed at all.

The first global war began in August of 1914. There was no comparable event in human history to which it was comparable. It killed 16 million people, and among them were 116,000 Americans in a spasm of violence between 1917-1918. The war destroyed the Austro-Hungarian empire, Ottoman empire,  defeated and humiliated Imperial Germany, redrew the boundaries of the Middle East and Arabia and beggared the British and French empires. The horror of trench warfare and the protracted stalemate triggered a search for meaning in the cause within the democracies whose societies were being shattered by the losses. The cause became a “war to end all wars.” Nobody in the moment could imagine worse. How could they?  

The next war would start slightly more than 20 years after the “war to end all wars” ended. The Second World War would kill more than 85 million people around the world. Most historians label its beginning as September 1, 1939, and end on September 2, 1945. The truth is that the killing began in the mid 1930s with aggression by fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan. The world looked away until it was too late. 

When the Second World War ended, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, a highly decorated veteran of the First World War and the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, accepted the surrender of the Japanese Empire aboard the battleship USS Missouri, anchored in Tokyo Bay at the beginning of the atomic age. Unlike the unconditional surrender of Germany, which was done in private, the surrender of the Japanese was the most listened to global broadcast in history on that September day in 1945. MacArthur’s comments were divided into two parts, separated by the signing of the surrender documents by the defeated Japanese representatives and victorious Allies. 

Here is what he said during the first part of the ceremony:

We are gathered here, representatives of the major warring powers, to conclude a solemn agreement whereby peace may be restored.

The issues involving divergent ideals and ideologies have been determined on the battlefields of the world, and hence are not for our discussion or debate.

Nor is it for us here to meet, representing as we do a majority of the peoples of the earth, in a spirit of distrust, malice, or hatred.

But rather it is for us, both victors and vanquished, to rise to that higher dignity which alone befits the sacred purposes we are about to serve, committing all of our peoples unreservedly to faithful compliance with the undertakings they are here formally to assume.

It is my earnest hope, and indeed the hope of all mankind, that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past — a world founded upon faith and understanding, a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance, and justice.

After the surrender document was signed MacArthur delivered an address that spoke to the realities of the new era during which mankind held the power of extinction over the entire planet. 

Here is what he said:

Today the guns are silent. A great tragedy has ended. A great victory has been won…

A new era is upon us. Even the lesson of victory itself brings with it profound concern, both for our future security and the survival of civilization. The destructiveness of the war potential, through progressive advances in scientific discovery, has in fact now reached a point which revises the traditional concepts of war. 

Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn have failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. We have had our last chance. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our matchless advances in science, art, literature and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.

There are few words that have ever been spoken that are more profound. They should be considered at a moment when public character has been disintegrated in a vat of MAGA acid, and one of America’s two political parties has been seized by an extremist cause that combines recklessness, stupidity, malice and dishonesty into an ideology of nothing that could cost everything. 

There is a simple question that deserves contemplation. Is humanity’s most deadly event in front of us or behind us? Has the centuries-long escalation of violence come to its end, or will the 21st century become the deadliest of all? 

The world is interconnected, and it seems to be spiraling. 

The war in Ukraine is intensifying.

The Netanyahu extremist government in Israel has incited chaos, and provoked what might become a third intifada.

Military strikes were launched against Iran, which has become the principal supplier of weapons and drones to the beleaguered, yet lethal Russians.

The United States Marine Corps opened its first new base in 70 years with the establishment of Camp Blaz in Guam. Should war come with China over Taiwan, they will be the first American ground forces in the fight in much the way the 1st Marine Division was against the Japanese on Guadalcanal.

As reported by NBC News, a four-star US Air Force General has made clear in a memo the urgency for American forces that he thinks war might come in the Taiwan Straits in 2025.

Iranian warships are currently visiting Brazil.

More than 100,000 Americans will be killed by Mexican cartel-produced fentanyl in 2023. 

There have been frivolous and corrupt eras before this one. They all ended. Most ended suddenly. Films and literature memorialize those last fleeting moments of peace before the storm that washes away the excess, and restores human memory about the meaning of war, death and suffering. 

I believe that MacArthur is correct about the linkage between human survival and human character in an era in which there are weapons that could extinct civilization in the hands of people who don’t remember — and don’t appreciate — the greatest catastrophe in human history. We are at a dangerous hour. It is made more dangerous by the collapse of character across the whole of the elected leadership of the Republican Congress.

07/24/23 Biking & Listening

Biking is something else I both love and hate. It takes a lot of effort but does provide good exercise and most days over an hour to listen to a good book or podcast. I especially like having ridden.

Here’s my bike, a Rockhopper by Specialized. I purchased it November 2021 from Venture Out in Guntersville; Mike is top notch! So is the bike, and the ‘old’ man seat I salvaged from an old Walmart bike.

Here’s a link to today’s bike ride.


Something to consider if you’re not already cycling.

I encourage you to start riding a bike, no matter your age. Check out these groups:

Cycling for those aged 70+(opens in a new tab)

Solitary Cycling(opens in a new tab)

Remember,

Photo by Suzy Hazelwood on Pexels.com

I’m listening to Don’t Let Go by Harlan Coben

Amazon Abstract

FROM THE BESTSELLING AUTHOR AND CREATOR OF THE HIT NETFLIX DRAMA THE STRANGER

With unmatched suspense and emotional insight, Harlan Coben explores the big secrets and little lies that can destroy a relationship, a family, and even a town in this powerful new thriller.

Suburban New Jersey Detective Napoleon “Nap” Dumas hasn’t been the same since senior year of high school, when his twin brother Leo and Leo’s girlfriend Diana were found dead on the railroad tracks—and Maura, the girl Nap considered the love of his life, broke up with him and disappeared without explanation. For fifteen years, Nap has been searching, both for Maura and for the real reason behind his brother’s death. And now, it looks as though he may finally find what he’s been looking for. 

When Maura’s fingerprints turn up in the rental car of a suspected murderer, Nap embarks on a quest for answers that only leads to more questions—about the woman he loved, about the childhood friends he thought he knew, about the abandoned military base near where he grew up, and mostly about Leo and Diana—whose deaths are darker and far more sinister than Nap ever dared imagine.


Here’s a few photos from along my pistol route:

What Would Convince Us Christianity is True?

Here’s the link to this article.

By John W. Loftus at 6/30/2023

We atheists are asked to imagine what would convince us that Christianity is true. The short answer is this: We need sufficient objective evidence that can transform the negligible amount of human testimony found in the Bible into verified eyewitness testimony. But it does not exist. Given the extraordinary nature of the miracle tales in the Bible, this requirement means the past has to be changed and that can’t be done. Let’s explore this.

Consider the Christian belief in the virgin-birthed deity. Just ask for the objective evidence. There is no objective evidence to corroborate the Virgin Mary’s story. We hear nothing about her wearing a misogynistic chastity belt to prove her virginity. No one checked for an intact hymen before she gave birth, either. After Jesus was born, Maury Povich wasn’t there with a DNA test to verify Joseph was not the baby daddy. We don’t even have first-hand testimonial evidence for it since the story is related to us by others, not by Mary or Joseph. At best, all we have is second-hand testimony by one person, Mary, as reported in two later anonymous gospels, or two people if we include Joseph, who was incredulously convinced Mary was a virgin because of a dream–yes, a dream (see Matthew 1:19-24).[1] We never get to independently cross-examine Mary and Joseph, or the people who knew them, which we would need to do since they may have a very good reason for lying (pregnancy out of wedlock, anyone?).

Now one might simply trust the anonymous Gospel writers who wrote down this miraculous tale, but why? How is it possible they could find out that a virgin named Mary gave birth to a deity? Think about how they would go about researching that. No reasonable investigation could take Mary’s word for it, or Joseph’s word. With regard to Joseph’s dream, Thomas Hobbes tells us, “For a man to say God hath spoken to him in a Dream, is no more than to say he dreamed that God spake to him; which is not of force to win belief from any man” (Leviathan, chap. 32.6). So the testimonial evidence is down to one person, Mary, which is still second-hand testimony at best. Why should we believe that testimony?

Christian believers accept ancient 2nd 3rd 4th 5th handed-down testimony to the virgin birth of Jesus, but they would never believe two people who claimed to see a virgin give birth to an incarnate god in today’s world!

On this fact, Christian believers are faced with a serious dilemma. If this is the kind of research that went into writing the Gospel of Matthew–by taking Mary’s word and Joseph’s dream as evidence–then we shouldn’t believe anything else we find in that Gospel without corroborating objective evidence. The lack of evidence for Mary’s story speaks directly to the credibility of the Gospel narrative as a whole. There’s no good reason to believe the virgin birth myth, so there’s no good reason to believe the resurrection myth either, since the claim of Jesus’ bodily resurrection is first told in that Gospel.[2]

In a recent online discussion fundamentalist apologist Lydia McGrew suggested I got it wrong. Her knee jerk reaction to me was that the author of Matthew’s gospel merely reported that Joseph’s dream convinced him Mary’s tale was true, and nothing more. But if so, why is Joseph’s dream included in Matthew’s gospel at all? It doesn’t do anything to lead reasonable people to accept Mary’s story, as her testimony would still stand alone without any support. It would be tantamount to showing that Joseph was incredulously convinced by less than what a reasonable person should accept. So what? It would also encourage readers to consider their own dreams as convincing on other issues.

So let us imagine what could have been…

If an overwhelming number of Jews in first-century Palestine had become Christians that would’ve helped. They believed in their God. They believed their God did miracles. They knew their Old Testament prophecies. They hoped for a Messiah/King based on these prophecies.[3] We’re even told they were beloved by their God! Yet the overwhelming majority of those first-century Jews did not believe Jesus was raised from the dead.[4] They were there and they didn’t believe. So why should we?

If I could go back in time to watch Jesus coming out of a tomb that would work. But I can’t travel back in time. If someone recently found some convincing objective evidence dating to the days of Jesus, that would work. But I can’t imagine what kind of evidence that could be. As I’ve argued, uncorroborated testimonial evidence alone wouldn’t work, so an authenticated handwritten letter from the mother of Jesus would be insufficient. If a cell phone was discovered and dated to the time of Jesus containing videos of him doing miracles, that would work. But this is just as unlikely as his resurrection. If Jesus, God, or Mary were to appear to me, that would work. But that has never happened even in my believing days, and there’s nothing I can do to make it happen either. Several atheists have suggested other scenarios that would work, but none of them have panned out.[5]

Believers will cry foul, complaining that the kind of objective evidence needed to believe cannot be found, as if we concocted this need precisely to deny miracles. But this is simply what reasonable people need. If that’s the case, then that’s the case. Bite the bullet. It’s not our fault it doesn’t exist. Once honest inquirers admit the objective evidence doesn’t exist, they should stop complaining and be honest about its absence. It’s that simple. Since reasonable people need this evidence, God is to be blamed for not providing it. Why would a God create us as reasonable people and then not provide what reasonable people need? Reasonable people should always think about these matters in accordance to the probabilities based on the strength of the objective evidence.

Believers will object that I haven’t stated any criteria for identifying what qualifies as extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary miraculous claim. But I know what does not count. Second-, third-, or fourth-hand hearsay testimony doesn’t count. Nor does circumstantial evidence. Nor does anecdotal evidence as reported in documents that are centuries later than the supposed events, which were copied by scribes and theologians who had no qualms about including forgeries. I also know that subjective feelings, private experiences, or inner voices don’t count as extraordinary evidence. Neither do claims that one’s writings are inspired, divinely communicated through dreams, or were seen in visions. That should be good enough. Chasing the definitional demand for specific criteria sidetracks us away from that which matters. Concrete suggestions matter. But if Christians want more they should learn to examine the miracle claims in the Bible from the perspective of a historian.[6]

If nothing else, a God who desired our belief could have waited until our present technological age to perform miracles, because people in this scientific age of ours need to see the evidence. If a God can send the savior Jesus in the first century, whose death supposedly atoned for our sins and atoned for all the sins of the people in the past, prior to his day, then that same God could have waited to send Jesus to die in the year 2023. Doing so would bring salvation to every person born before this year, too, which just adds twenty centuries of people to save.

In today’s world it would be easy to provide objective evidence of the Gospel miracles. Magicians and mentalists would watch Jesus to see if he could fool them, like what Penn & Teller do on their show. There would be thousands of cell phones that could document his birth, life, death, and resurrection. The raising of Lazarus out of his tomb would go viral. We could set up a watch party as Jesus was being put into his grave to document everything all weekend, especially his resurrection. We could ask the resurrected Jesus to tell us things that only the real Jesus could have known or said before he died. Photos could be compared. DNA tests could be conducted on the resurrected body of Jesus, which could prove his resurrection, if we first snatched the foreskin of the baby Jesus long before his death. Plus, everyone in the world could watch as his body ascended back into the heavenly sky above, from where it was believed he came down to earth.

Christian believers say their God wouldn’t make his existence that obvious. But if their God had wanted to save more people, as we read he did (2 Peter 3:9), then it’s obvious he should’ve waited until our modern era to do so. For the evidence could be massive. If nothing else, their God had all of this evidence available to him, but chose not to use any of it, even though with the addition of each unit of evidence, more people would be saved.

It’s equally obvious that if a perfectly good, omnipotent God wanted to be hidden, for some hidden reason, we should see some evidence of this. But outside the apologetical need to explain away the lack of objective evidence for faith, we don’t find it. For there are a number of events taking place daily in which such a God could alleviate horrendous suffering without being detected. God could’ve stopped the underwater earthquake that caused the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami before it happened, thus saving a quarter of a million lives. Then, with a perpetual miracle God could’ve kept it from ever happening in the future. If God did this, none of us would ever know that he did. Yet he didn’t do it. Since there are millions of clear instances like this one, where a theistic God didn’t alleviate horrendous suffering even though he could do so without being detected, we can reasonably conclude that a God who hides himself doesn’t exist. If nothing else, a God who doesn’t do anything about the most horrendous cases of suffering doesn’t do anything about the lesser cases of suffering either, or involve himself in our lives.[7]

In any case, imagining some nonexistent evidence that could convince us Mary gave birth to a divine son sired by a male god in the ancient superstitious world is a futile exercise, since we already know there’s no objective evidence for it. One might as well imagine what would convince us that Marshall Applewhite, of the Heaven’s Gate suicide cult, was telling the truth in 1997 that an extraterrestrial spacecraft following the comet Hale-Bopp was going to beam their souls up to it, if they would commit suicide with him. One might even go further to imagine what would convince us that he and his followers are flying around the universe today! Such an exercise would be utter tomfoolery, because faith is tomfoolery.

Anthropology professor James T. Houk has said, “Virtually anything and everything, no matter how absurd, inane, or ridiculous, has been believed or claimed to be true at one time or another by somebody, somewhere in the name of faith.”[8] This is exactly what we find when Christians believe on less than sufficient objective evidence.

——–

[1] Joseph’s dream is used in the Gospel of Matthew’s narrative to help explain why Mary was not put to death for dishonoring him because of adultery. There are five other dreams in this gospel account which were all intended to save someone’s life. So, Joseph’s dream was probably meant to save Mary’s life too (Matthew 1:19-23; 2:12; 2:19-23; & 27:19). Matthew J. Marohl shows in Joseph’s Dilemma: “Honor Killing” in the Birth Narrative of Matthew (Wipf & Stock Publisher, 2008), that “Joseph’s dilemma involves the possibility of an honor killing. If Joseph reveals that Mary is pregnant, she will be killed. If Joseph conceals Mary’s pregnancy, he will be opposing the law of the Lord. What is a ‘righteous’ man to do?” Marohl: “Early Christ-followers understood Joseph’s dilemma to involve an assumption of adultery and the subsequent possibility of the killing of Mary.” This was part of their culture. Honor killings were justified in both the Old and New Testaments. Jesus even agreed with the Mosaic Law (Exodus 21:17; Leviticus 20:9) against his opponents on behalf of honor killings of children who dishonored their parents (Mark 7:8-13). The tale of the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus exposes the hypocrisy of her accusers, doesn’t change what Jesus thinks of the law either (John 8; Matthew 5:18).

Don’t be surprised by the possibility of honor killings. Jesus affirmed their legitimacy. The Pharisees accused Jesus of being too lenient in his observance of the law. So Jesus counterpunches them in Mark 7:9-12: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God) then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother.” (NIV) Corban is an Aramaic word that refers to a sacrifice, oath, or gift to God. The Pharisees allowed for this loophole so someone could make an oath to offer a gift to the temple, like one would set up a trust fund, in order to avoid giving it for the care of one’s aging parents.

Jesus’ first scriptural quote to “Honor your father and mother” is one of the Ten Commandments. Jesus’ second scriptural quote that “Anyone who curses (literally dishonors) their father or mother is to be put to death”, is found in Ex. 21:17 and Lev. 20:9. Jesus says the Corban loophole sets aside these two commands of God. For such a son would be disobeying a direct command of God by dishonoring his parents, while the Pharisees would be disobeying God’s command by not putting him to death. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 elaborates (i.e., the second law): “If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death.”

In this Jesus is affirming the Old Testament law of honor killings by stoning, for only if both of the laws Jesus cites are to be obeyed can his analogy succeed, that the Pharisees have set aside the laws of God in order to observe their traditions. For more on the harms of Christianity see my anthology, Christianity is not Great (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2014).

[2] On the resurrection, see Loftus, The Case against Miracles (United Kingdom: Hypatia Press, 2019), chapter 17.

[3] To see how early Christian’s misused Old Testament prophecy, see Robert J. Miller’s excellent book, Helping Jesus Fulfill Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2015).

[4] The most plausible estimate of the first-century Jewish population comes from a census of the Roman Empire during the reign of Claudius (48 CE) that counted nearly 7 million Jews. See the entry “Population” in Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 13. In Palestine there may have been as many as 2.5 million Jews. See Magen Broshi, “Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem.” Biblical Archaeological Review Vol. 4, No. 2 (June 1978): 10-15. Despite these numbers, Catholic New Testament scholar David C. Sim shows that “Throughout the first century the total number of Jews in the Christian movement probably never exceeded 1,000.” See How Many Jews Became Christians in the First Century: The Failure of the Christian Mission to the Jews. Hervormde Teologiese Studies Vol. 61, No. 1/2 (2005): 417-440.

[5] Loftus, What Would Convince Atheists To Become Christians? The Definitive Answers! (April 4, 2017).

[6] See Bart D. Ehrman on the Historian and the Resurrection of Jesus.

[7] See my anthology, God and Horrendous Suffering for more.

[8] James T. Houk, The Illusion of Certainty (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2017), p. 16.

————–

John W. Loftus is a philosopher and counter-apologist credited with 12 critically acclaimed books, including The Case against MiraclesGod and Horrendous Suffering, and Varieties of Jesus Mythicism. Please support DC by sharing our posts, or by subscribing, donating, or buying our books at Amazon. As an Amazon Associate John earns a small amount of money from any purchases made there. Buying anything through them helps fund the work here, and is greatly appreciated!