Arizona House GOP passes bill forcing kids to say Pledge in school

Here’s the link to this article by Hemant Mehta written 02/23/23.

State Rep. Barbara Parker claimed the bill was legal because church/state separation wasn’t in the Constitution

Hemant Mehta

I would greatly appreciate it if you became a full subscriber! You can use the button below to subscribe to Substack or use my usual Patreon page!


On a straight party-line vote, Arizona Republicans have backed a bill forcing public school students to say the Pledge of Allegiance. While no penalty is specified for those who disobey, the illegal bill offers no exceptions for students who refuse to participate in the religious ritual.

HB2523, which passed by a slim 31-29 vote, says that all K-12 students “shall recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag.” The only exceptions apply to students who are at least 18 or who have the explicit permission of their parents to sit out. But students who oppose saying the Pledge on principle would have no recourse here unless their parents were on their side.

I’ve made an entire podcast series about the history of the Pledge, but just to go over the biggest concerns…

The phrase “under God” pushes religion onto people who may not be religious. Even without that phrase, the very notion of pledging allegiance to a flag violates the religious beliefs of some students who believe only God deserves allegiance.

The Pledge also falsely suggests that we have “liberty and justice for all,” which is one reasons students of color have opposed it in recent years.

The Pledge was originally written to promote anti-immigrant sentiment.

And frankly, our country doesn’t always deserve admiration. Why would we want to “pledge allegiance” to a nation that is so often a global embarrassment? If Saudi Arabia forced students to say a pledge to their country every day, we’d immediately call it a form of brainwashing.

Those are all reason not to say the Pledge in a normal situation, but forcing students to participate in the religious ritual against their will, unless their parents feel the same way they do, is undoubtedly a violation of students’ civil rights.

That means this bill is illegal and would provoke a lawsuit if it ever became law. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in Barnette in 1943 that students couldn’t be forced to salute the flag or say the Pledge. (That decision overturned a notoriously awful ruling from 1940 which said the opposite.) While “Under God” wasn’t in the Pledge at the time, the justices said the government could not compel speech, with one justice famously writing, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

None of that mattered to the bill’s sponsor, first-term Republican State Rep. Barbara Parker, who, in a speech just before the vote took place, implied that church/state separation was a myth and that the 1943 Supreme Court decision was irrelevant.

Hemant Mehta @hemantmehta

Arizona House Republicans just passed a bill *forcing* kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. Rep. Barbara Parker, the bill’s sponsor, defended it by claiming church/state separation wasn’t in the Constitution. Details: friendlyatheist.substack.com/p/arizona-hous…

2:40 PM ∙ Feb 23, 2023

First of all, a couple of things. One is: It’s really important that we clear up a few things that should never be said again from lawmakers in a legislature.

One: The separation of church and state is in the Constitution. That was never said in the Constitution. It was written in a letter years later. The separation clause was therefore the government couldn’t form a religion or couldn’t force a state religion. So let’s never hear that again.

A second thing is that: Everybody tends to quote the Barnette ruling from 1943. First of all, “Under God” wasn’t put in in 1943. It was put in in 1954. And nobody’s really ever opposed that.

Furthermore, we stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance everyday on this floor. What’s good for us is good for the children.

Separation of church and state emerges from the First Amendment and has repeatedly been interpreted that way by the courts. To pretend the government can therefore promote religion is nothing more than willful ignorance by someone who has plenty to spare.

More importantly, Parker is flat-out wrong about the Barnette case. She cited it because a Democrat mentioned it just before she spoke, but Parker seemed to think the case was being used to push back against “Under God.” It wasn’t. It was cited to point out that government cannot force students to say or do something political against their will. (And, yes, plenty of people and judges have opposed both mandatory recitation of the Pledge and the inclusion of “Under God.”)

Parker also thinks that if her legislative colleagues do it, it should be okay for kids to follow suit. Again, she has no clue what she’s talking about. Just to give one example, the Supreme Court has permitted invocation prayers at city council meetings, but the same privilege doesn’t extend to school board meetings or graduations where children may be present.

Just because Republicans in the Arizona legislature want to use their majorities to inflict Christianity on their colleagues doesn’t mean they have any right to force that on children.

The Arizona Senate, where the bill now heads, also has a slim Republican majority of 16-14. Even if it passes there, though, Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, can thankfully veto it. If and when that happens, Hobbs would be saving taxpayers from a costly lawsuit they would inevitably lose.

The government cannot force children to say a prayer in school no matter how much misinformation Christians like Barbara Parker want to spread.

Here’s What’s Wrong with Three Favorite Bible Texts

Here’s the link to this article.

By David Madison on 02/10/23

Psalm 23, the Lord’s Prayer & John 3:16

Sunday School and Catechism exist because the clergy know that certain articles of faith must be established as early as possible: capture young minds and hold them forever—at least that’s the hope. One of these articles of faith is that the clergy are custodians of truth about the god/gods they proclaim, so just accept what they tell you. A second article is that if certain scripture texts are recited frequently, endlessly, from the earliest years, they become part of life, fundamental truths not to be questioned. Remembering them, reciting them, are sources of comfort. Hence it would never cross the minds of many adult churchgoers to question—to critically examine—the Bible texts they’ve known and loved from an early age. They are disinclined to ask: Do these texts make sense? Do they fit with what we know about our world after a few hundred years of science and discovery?

Psalm 23

This certainly qualifies as escape-from-reality scripture. Christians cherish it especially because Jesus is presented in John’s gospel as The Good Shepherd: so, the shepherd presented in the 23rd Psalm is the way they want their Jesus to be. One of the tricks that Bible translators have pulled is the camouflaging of the divine name. In the ancient world gods had names, and the god of the Hebrew Bible was named Yahweh. But not too many Christians go around proclaiming their love for Yahweh; that would sound just too strange. So translators have spared them this embarrassment: be on the lookout, in the Old Testament, for Lord spelled with all-caps: LORD. This is a replacement for Yahweh.

So “the LORD is my shepherd” is actually, “Yahweh is my shepherd.” And although this is an escape-from-reality text, we do have to admire the author for expressing a dissenting opinion about Yahweh. For the most part in the Old Testament, Yahweh is depicted as a rampaging, angry deity, a demanding bully of a god. We see this full strength in the Noah flood story—a horrifying tale of genocide; also in Yahweh’s targeted murder of children in his epic struggle with Egypt’s pharaoh. Anyone who ventures through the Old Testament can only be shocked at this god’s murderous behavior (see especially, Steve Wells, Drunk with Blood: God’s Killings in the Bible). 

The author of Psalm 23 envisioned a kinder, gentler theology. I won’t quote the entire psalm here, since it’s so easy to find, but here are three key sentiments that the devout today find so appealing:

“The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul…”

Churchgoers want continual assurance that the god who runs the Cosmos knows about them, cares about them; is looking out for their well-being. It’s a calming thought that a god walks with us near “still waters,” and restores our souls. But I do wonder if this escape-from-reality text really does help ordinary folks as they grapple with what life throws at them. Do they experience serenity any more than people who don’t know/believe in the theology behind this text? In the midst of personal pain and tragedy, does this text come to the rescue? This is theology designed to divert attention from what the real world throws at us: Yahweh and Jesus love you: hold on to that thought!

“Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.”

The image here is of the shepherd protecting his flock, equipped with rod and staff, to scare off predators. But is it the case that devout Christian folks don’t fear evil? As they face dangers that evoke this image of the “valley of the shadow of death,” are they certain that Jesus is their constant, reliable protector? No: life happens, and everyone—no matter their religious beliefs—gets smacked by horrible, even deadly events. Hence this is an escape-from-reality text. Some believers refuse to accept the grim truth, e.g., there’s been a serious house fire, killing a member of the family, but…the Bible was untouched by the flames: praise god…or rather, Yahweh!

The shallow theology—it sounds nice, but that’s about all—continues: “Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.” When I looked at the news today, the death toll from the Turkey/Syria earthquake has surpassed 21,000. Where were god’s goodness and mercy? It seems he was behaving in mysterious ways once again.

The Lord’s Prayer

“Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.”   (Matthew 6:9-13, KJV)

The very first sentence captures so much of the narrow, superstitious ancient world view, tainted with patriarchal bias. Our father: So much damage has been caused by identifying god as male, but this derives from the old god Yahweh being modeled on tribal chieftains. Surely, upon reflection, it cannot possibly be argued that a creator-god in charge of billions of galaxies possesses gender as understood by our species. Which art in heaven: thought to be a few miles overhead, which meant that holy men could get closer to god by going to mountaintops. And the story of Jesus ascending to heaven (Acts 1) made perfectly good sense at the time. Even my devout mother had figured out that heaven couldn’t be up there. She told me it is a state of being in the presence of god. But the Lord’s Prayer is rooted in the ancient cosmology.

Hallowed be thy name. Why would a god need to be reminded, assured by humans, that its name is holy? Has god benefitted from being given this ego boost for hundreds of years? If god is already all-powerful, how does this make sense? Moreover, assuming that a name is holy is an aspect of magical thinking. The name has to be protected, hence the warning: “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.” (Exodus 20:7) This, above all, is an example of laypeople being disinclined to ask: Do these texts make sense?

Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. This line seems to derive from the primary message of Mark’s gospel that the kingdom of god was imminent—there is an any-day-now feel to it—hence in this Jesus-script, the faithful are urged to keep reminding god to get the job done. Does he ever get annoyed with this continual pestering? Here’s a another issue: Do those who routinely recite these words today give any thought to what the arrival of the kingdom supposedly will entail? In other Jesus-script we find the prediction that it will bring as much suffering as happened in the time of Noah, i.e., most of the people on earth were killed. Thy kingdom come, in fact, reflects the naïve apocalypticism that the early church accepted—and that was simply wrong. For more on this see John Loftus’ essay, “At


Best Jesus Was a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet,” in his 2010 anthology, The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. There is so much in the New Testament that is absolutely awful. 

John 3:16

Those of us raised in Christianity know it by heart: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.” Anyone who has read the Bible—and studied history—knows that this claim, god so loves the world, has been falsified. Consider just the problem of horrendous human and animal suffering—and there has been plenty written about that here on this blog. Chalk this claim up to John’s tedious habit of theological exaggeration—what I sometimes have called theology inflation. But John immediately undermines this claim with what can be called the exclusionary clauses. The overwhelming majority of people who have ever lived have not believed in Jesus—so they’re out of luck. And this is stated bluntly in John 3:18: “Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3:36 is even meaner: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life but must endure God’s wrath.” This theology is a mark of cult fanaticism: if you’re not a member of our in-group, god will smash you. Notice as well the magical thinking here: it’s important to believe in the name.

We can be suspect that the folks who rave about John 3:16 pay little heed to John 3:14-15: “And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”

What’s that about? The serpent in the wilderness? The god who so loves the world was in a nasty mood, as mentioned in Numbers 21:5-9, which is worth quoting in full:

“The people spoke against God and against Moses, ‘Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we detest this miserable food.’Then Yahweh sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, ‘We have sinned by speaking against Yahweh and against you; pray to Yahweh to take away the serpents from us.’ So Moses prayed for the people. And Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Make a poisonous serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.’ So Moses made a serpent of bronze and put it upon a pole, and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.” 

Pay attention: This god arranged for snakes to bite people? And John is comparing Jesus on the cross to a bronze serpent hanging on a pole. If you’ve been bitten by a poisonous serpent, but look at the serpent on the pole, you won’t die. And if you’ve been bitten by sin, you will get eternal life if you believe in Yahweh’s son hanging on the cross. These are both examples of naïve magical thinking: look at something, believe in something: you’ll be cured. Do the devout ever bother to analyze such goofiness? People who have walked away from Christianity have commonly done so because there is so much in the Bible, especially the gospels, that defies a sane and healthy approach to the world. 

It doesn’t require too much effort to see that Psalm 23 is delusional, shallow piety; that key elements in the Lord’s Prayer make sense only in the context of ancient cosmology and superstitions about gods; that the faulty sentiment of John 3:16 is embedded in a chapter crippled by vindictive theology. Sad to say, these texts are honored and celebrated in Christian ritual—pushed by the clergy who don’t want them to be scrutinized. 

But the advice still stands: Pay attention, question everything.

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 Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith (2016; 2018 Foreword by John Loftus) and Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (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

Is Suffering a “Problem” for Believers?

Here’s the link to this article written by Bart Ehrman on February 22, 2023.

This past week I had a long talk with one of my bright undergraduates, a first-year student who had been raised in a Christian context but had come to have serious doubts driven in large part by the difficulty she had understanding how there could be suffering in a world controlled by an all-knowing and all-powerful God.  I naturally resonated with the question, since this is why I myself left the Christian faith.

I get asked about that transition a lot, and it’s been five or six years since I’ve discussed it at any length on the blog.  So I thought I might return to it.  The one and only time I”ve talked about it at length is in my book God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer (Oxford University Press, 2008).  Here is how I discuss it there, slightly edited.  (This will take several posts)

*******************************

I think I know when suffering started to become a “problem” for me.  It was while I was still a believing Christian – in fact, it was when I was pastoring the Princeton Baptist Church in New Jersey.  It was not the suffering that I observed and tried to deal with in the congregation that prompted my questioning – failed marriages, economic hardship, the suicide of a teenage son.  It was in fact something that took place outside of the church, in the academy.  At the time I was writing my PhD dissertation and – in addition to working in the church – was teaching part time at Rutgers University.

One of the classes that I taught that year was a new one for me.  Before this I had mainly been teaching courses on the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the writings of Paul.  But I had been asked to teach a course called “The Problem of Suffering in the Biblical Traditions.”  I welcomed the opportunity because it seemed to me to be an interesting way to approach the Bible, by examining the different responses given by biblical authors to the question of why there is suffering in the world, in particular among the people of God.

It was my belief then, and continues to be my belief now, that different biblical authors had different solutions to the question of why God’s people suffer: some (such as the prophets) thought that suffering came from God as a punishment for sin; others thought that suffering came from God’s cosmic enemies, who inflicted suffering precisely because people tried to do what was right before God; others thought that suffering came as a test to see if people would remain faithful despite suffering; others thought that suffering was a mystery and that it was wrong even to question why God allowed it; others thought that this world was just an inexplicable mess and that we should “eat, drink, and be merry” while we can.  And so on.

It seemed to me that one of the ways to see the rich diversity of the Scriptural heritage of Jews and Christians was to see how different authors responded to this fundamental question of suffering..

For the class I had students do a lot of reading throughout the Bible, as well as of popular books that discuss suffering in the modern world, for example Elie Wiesel’s classic Night,[i]  which describes his horrifying experiences in Auschwitz as a teenager, Rabbi Harold Kushner’s very popular book When Bad Things Happen to Good People,[ii]  and the much less read but thoroughly moving story of Job as rewritten by Archibald Macleish, in his play J.B.[iii]

I began the semester by laying out for the students the classical “problem” of suffering and explaining what is meant the technical term “theodicy.”  Theodicy is a word invented by one of the great intellectuals and polymaths of the seventeenth century, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who wrote a lengthy treatise trying to explain how and why there can be suffering in the world if God is all powerful and wants the absolute best for people.[iv]  The term is made up of two Greek words: theos, which means “God,” and dikē, which means “justice.”  Theodicy, in other words, refers to the problem of how God can be “just” or “righteous” given the fact there is so much suffering in the world that he created and is allegedly sovereign over.

As philosophers and theologians have discussed theodicy over the years, they have devised a kind of logical problem that needs to be solved to explain the suffering in the world.  This problem involves three assertions which all appear to be true, but if true appear to contradict one another.  The assertions are these:

God is all-powerful.

God is all-loving.

There is suffering.

How can all three be true at once?  If God is all powerful, then he is able to do whatever he wants (and can therefore remove suffering).  If he is all loving, then he obviously wants the best for people (and therefore does not want them to suffer).  And yet people suffer.  How can that be explained?

Some thinkers have tried to deny one or the other of the assertions.  Some, for example, have argued that God is not really all powerful – this is ultimately the answer given by Rabbi Kushner in his book When Bad Things Happen to Good People.  For Kushner, God wishes he could intervene to bring your suffering to an end, but his hands are tied.  And so he is the one who stands beside you to give you the strength you need to deal with the pain in your life, but he can’t do anything to stop the pain.  For other thinkers this is to put a limit on the power of God and is, in effect, a way of saying that God is not really God.

Others have argued that God is not all loving, at least in any conventional sense.  This is more or less the view of those who think God is at fault for the terrible suffering that people incur – a view that seems close to what Elie Wiesel asserts, when he expresses his anger at God and declares him guilty for how he has treated his people.  Others, again, object and claim that if God is not love, again he is not God.

There are some people who want to deny the third assertion; they claim that there is not really any suffering in the world.  But these people are in the extreme minority and have never been very convincing to most of us, who prefer looking at the world as it is to hiding our heads in the sand like ostriches.

******************************

I will continue next time from here.  (You may want to hold off explaining to us all why there is suffering until I finish with the thread; at that point I’ll be asking you what you yourself think)

Most people who wrestle with the problem want to say that all three assertions are true, but that there is some kind of extenuating circumstance that can explain it all.  For example, in the classical view of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, as we will see at length in the next couple of chapters, God is certainly all powerful and all loving; one of the reasons there is suffering is because his people have violated his law or gone against his will, and he is bringing suffering upon them in order to force them to return to him and lead righteous lives.  This kind of explanation works well so long as it is the wicked who are the ones who suffer.  But what about the wicked who prosper while the ones who try to do what is right before God are wracked with interminable pain and unbearable misery?  How does one explain the suffering of the righteous?  For that another explanation needs to be used (for example, that it will all be made right in the afterlife – a view not found in the prophets but in other biblical authors).  And so it goes.

[i]. A new translation is now available by Wiesel’s wife, Marion Wiesel; Night (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006).

[ii]. Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People (New York: Anchor, 1981).

[iii]. Archibald MacLeish, J.B.: A Play in Verse.  (Boston: Houghlin Mifflin, 1957).

[iv].  G. W. Leibniz, Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God and the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil (Chicago: Open Court, 1985).

Faith vs. Fact, by Jerry Coyne. Reading Session #5 (Chapter 2, What’s Incompatible?)

This is a great book. Eye-opening, especially to those who’ve never considered the incompatibility of science and religion.

I encourage you to watch my computer screen, listen, and think as I read aloud the words written by the brilliant evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne.

Click the link below to begin Reading Session #5. It starts at the beginning of Chapter 2.

Reading Session #4, #3, 2, and 1 can be found here, here, here, and here.

https://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/c0n30jVyvwa

Teachings of Jesus that Christians Dislike and Ignore, Number 1

By David Madison at 2/03/2023

Here’s the link to this article.

They just say NO to their Lord and Savior 

Nothing undermines Christianity more than taking a close look at the teaching attributed to Jesus in the gospels—and, well, taking a close look at Christian history. Even some of the Jesus-script that deserves a high-rating reveals how far short this religion falls in real life. Moreover, there are many sayings of Jesus that would make many laypeople uneasy—they would even find them appalling—if they took the time to think about them carefully. My own list of questionable Jesus sayings comes to 292, which I’ve broken down into four categories: (1) Preaching about the end times; (2) Scary extremism; (3) Bad advice and bad theology; (4) The unreal Jesus of John’s gospel. 

This article begins a new series in which we’ll take a close look at some of the Jesus-script that many Christians themselves resist and reject—but would be reluctant to say so out loud.

Let’s begin with a Jesus quote that most Christians would endorse enthusiastically, Matthew 18:21-22: “Then Peter came and said to him, ‘Lord, if my brother or sister sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.’” Some translations render the Greek as “seventy-times seven.” These words echo that line from the Lord’s Prayer, Matthew 6:12, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”  

We find similar sentiments in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:23-24: “So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift.”

Let’s look at Matthew 18:21-22 from three perspectives.

ONE

Has this very generous level of forgiveness been standard Christian behavior? Do most of the faithful even aspire to it? When I served two Methodist parishes, I soon discovered, in each one of them, the factions and frictions: the people who just didn’t get along. In fact, there were toxic rivalries. There was no such thing as “a big happy family” because forgiveness wasn’t a top priority. I thought of this many years later when I read Tim Sledge’s book, Four Disturbing Question with One Simple Answer: Breaking the Spell of Christian Belief. While I was in a middle-of-the-road Protestant denomination, Tim Sledge was not, and saw what happens with evangelicals:

“Take a group of these born-again, new creations in Christ—to whom God is giving directions and guidance for day-to-day life—put them in a church and wait. Eventually, some of them will get into a disagreement about something. Sometimes they work it out, but often, no matter how much prayer takes place, one group gets angry and leaves, often to start another congregation. Wait a little longer, and the process will repeat—over and over—and that’s one reason we have not only thousands of churches, but thousands of Christian denominations.” (p. 16)

“…one group gets angry and leaves…” So here are super-Christians who fail utterly at forgiving seventy-times-seven. Egos, personal ambitions, and theological arrogance play far bigger roles than forgiveness. And what a scandal: Christians have failed so dramatically at forgiving that there are now many thousands of Christian brands. 

At one of my jobs a few years back, two of my colleagues were devout Catholic women. But one of them hated the other one, based I suspect on envy and jealousy. I saw no evidence whatever of any degree of Christian forgiveness. It never entered her mind. 

And here’s a headline that caught my attention this weekFirst Baptist Church members must now sign sexuality oath opposing LGBTQ freedomsThe opening sentence:

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Calling the “sexual revolution” a “threat to our church,” First Baptist Church in Jacksonville will now require congregants to sign a statement affirming their opposition to LGBTQ+ freedoms if they want to remain members.

Here again: super-Christians who banish Matthew 18:21-22 from their thinking as they devise policy about how to treat LGBTQ people. We can be sure there are gay people in that congregation. If Matthew 18:21-22 are authentic words of their Lord and Savior, we wonder What Would Jesus Do?

So much of Christian history demonstrates that Matthew 18:21-22 has failed to gain traction: the horrors of the Inquisition and the Crusades come to mind. The New Testament itself has fueled virulent anti-Semitism, and this emerged full strength in the rantings of Martin Luther. He suggested seven steps be taken against the Jews—the list is here on Wikipedia—and the first two set the tone: “First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …” “Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.”                                                                         

These were the folks who didn’t agree that Jesus was the messiah, so no mercy, no forgiveness whatever for them. 

TWO                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Inexplicably, the Christian god himself is not held to this high moral standard. Jesus makes his grand pronouncement about forgiveness in Matthew 18:21-22, and then illustrates his point with the parable of the unforgiving slave: a king wanted to get rid of a slave who owed him a lot of money, i.e. he planned to sell the slave and his family. But the slave begged him not to, promising to pay him all the money he owed: “And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the debt” (v. 27). But that same slave was brutal toward another slave who owed him money, throwing “him into prison until he would pay the debt” (v. 30). When the king heard about this, he was enraged: “‘You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?’ And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt’” (vv.32-34). 

We sometimes wonder what was going on inside Matthew’s head. This parable does not illustrate abundance of forgiveness. The slave whom the king had forgiven screws up badly, and gets tossed into jail. For the parable to be an illustration of Matthew 18:21-22, the king would have taken him aside and offered guidance on how to treat people better. “Okay, I forgive you for the way you treated your fellow slave, so let’s try this again. Let’s see if you can do better.” But Matthew makes an even bigger mistake, derailing into really bad theology:

“Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?” And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”  (Matthew 18:34-35)

Yes, you read that right: Jesus says that the heavenly father will hand every one of you over to be tortured if you don’t forgive. Even the most pious believers should be horrified by this text. Of course this doesn’t match the cherished ideas about a loving-father-god that the church promotes. But it does match the angry, wrathful god we find portrayed in scripture. For more on this, see my article Bible god is Not a god ANYONE Would Want.

The authors of the New Testament based their theologies on the bad-tempered god of the Old Testament, hence it’s no surprise to find a carry-over of vindictive theology. There are other texts in Matthew where generous forgiveness plays no part

“I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (12:36-37).

In Matthew’s famous Last Judgement scene (25:31-46) we read that those who fail to show sufficient compassion will “… depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels…”(v. 41)

When Jesus sent his disciples out to preach, he advised them not to waste time on those who wouldn’t listen: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” (Matthew 10:14-15).

As has been the case with cults throughout the millennia, early Christian thought-leaders insisted that correct belief was a qualification for belonging. If you failed at this, you were condemned—with no generous forgiveness in sight. We have no idea who wrote the forged ending of Mark’s gospel, but he reflected this intolerance: “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.” (16:16)

This strident intolerance is also found in that Bible chapter in which the devout find their favorite verse, i.e., John 3. Verse 16 states that god “so loved the world,” but we find this brutality in verse 18: “Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” And the last verse of the chapter (v. 36) reinforces this failure to forgive: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life but must endure God’s wrath.”  

The devout who truly believe these bits of scripture were inspired by the Christian god—whom they adore, worship, sing songs to—have they made any effort to wrap their minds around these cruel, unforgiving texts? 

THREE

New Testament scholars are aware of the fundamental problem with Matthew 18:21-22—as with any text in which Jesus is quoted: how do we know if Jesus actually said any such thing? There is actually no way to find this out, which is why it is appropriate to use the term Jesus-script. It looks very much like the gospel authors imagined what they thought Jesus might have said as they created their stories. Matthew 18:21-22 is found in no other gospel. The closest parallel we find is in Luke 17:3-4: “Be on your guard! If a brother or sister sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive. And if the same person sins against you seven times a day and turns back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive.” Moreover, the other gospels do not have the parable that follows, about the king and his slaves. 

We cannot take seriously the argument that these must be the words of Jesus because they’re in the Bible, which was inspired the Christian god. This is an article of faith; writing authentic history has to be based on documentary evidence, not on what the faithful hope/wish is true. The gospels fail as documentary evidence because they were written decades after the death of Jesus—and their authors never mention credible sources, i.e., sources that would satisfy secular historians. 

Add to this problem the troublesome fact that Jesus-script, just as presented in Matthew, is incoherent, as the quotes above indicate: the generous forgiveness in Matthew 18:21-22 is ignored even in the parable that follows, as well as in the texts about condemnation and eternal punishment by fire. Was it Jesus who was hopelessly confused—or did Matthew fail to think things through? I discussed this at length in my article here, Who the Hell Hired Matthew to Write a Gospel? In the following centuries, Christian theologians—of so many different varieties—have added substantially to the confusion and incoherence.  

A major contributor to the confusion and incoherence is Jesus-script itself, so much of which falls far short of being great moral teaching. We’ll get into more detail on this in the articles to come. 

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 Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith (2016; 2018 Foreword by John Loftus) and Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (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
Please support us at DC by commenting on and by sharing our posts, or subscribing,donating, or buying our books at Amazon.

The Southern Baptist Convention’s move to expel Saddleback Church will backfire

Here’s an email I received today from Hemant Mehta. It clearly reveals why I’m thankful I escaped Southern Baptist fundamentalism.

Here’s the link to this article.

The church founded by Rick Warren was kicked out of the SBC for having a woman pastor


The Southern Baptist Convention, which failed to kick out churches that employed sexual predators, has now expelled its most famous church for having a female pastor.

Saddleback Church, founded by Rick Warren, is no longer welcome in the SBC, after the Executive Committee decided it was no longer adhering to the He-Man Woman-Haters Club rule:

The Executive Committee’s motion said that Saddleback “has a faith and practice that does not closely identify with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith, as demonstrated by the church having a female teaching pastor functioning in the office of pastor.”

Saddleback has the right to appeal the decision at the Southern Baptists’ next annual meeting, scheduled for New Orleans in June. It did not respond immediately to requests for comment on the Executive Committee decision.

The decision comes years after Warren ordained three female pastors (for roles not quite at the top of the hierarchy). The problem now is that Stacie Wood, the wife of Andy Wood, the man replacing the now-retired Warren, is serving as a teaching pastor.

(Screenshot via YouTube)

Wood told The Associated Press last year that the Bible “teaches that men and women were given spiritual gifts by God.” His wife has served as teaching pastor for Saddleback.

“The church should be a place where both men and women can exercise those spiritual gifts,” Wood said. “My wife has the spiritual gift of teaching and she is really good. People often tell me she’s better than me when it comes to preaching, and I’m really glad to hear that.”

In a normal world, none of this would be controversial. We could argue over the content of the sermons rather than the drama involving the person delivering them. But Southern Baptists aren’t known for taking the rational approach. And they certainly aren’t interested in maintaining camaraderie with a church that threatens their entire business model.

The SBC has sometimes booted churches for sensible reasons like being too racist or harboring sexual predators. They’ve also expelled churches that were too LGBTQ-friendly, which is idiotic but at least in line with conservative Christian bigotry. But it’s a lot harder to justify to potential converts why they’re kicking out one of the largest megachurches in the country for elevating a woman to a position of authority.

Keep in mind that Andy Wood himself is transphobic and was oblivious to the spiritual abuse of self-appointed alpha preachers like Mark Driscoll. There were allegations of his own abusive ways:

Andy Wood also was the subject of a separate inquiry ordered by Saddleback after allegations surfaced of him being an abusive leader at his previous church. In July, the megachurch’s elders announced after investigations by two firms that they determined “there is no systemic or pattern of abuse under Andy’s leadership, nor was there an individual that we felt was abused.”

There are so many good reasons to criticize Wood and the church! A woman preaching isn’t one of them.

This is all coming at a time when the SBC’s public image is in ruins and membership is in steep decline. Back in October, the new SBC president even appeared on 60 Minutes to defend an organization whose member churches are currently being investigated by the Department of Justice for their mishandling of sexual abuse cases.

For all of Rick Warren’s faults—and there are plenty—telling women they’re capable of spreading the Gospel seems to be the sort of thing that would draw in more Christians than it alienates. No wonder the SBC can’t handle it. They’re experts at finding new ways to push people out of the faith.

As sociologist Ryan Burge pointed out, most evangelicals have no problem with a woman preaching:

Ryan Burge @ryanburge

According to survey data from 2020, nearly three quarters of evangelicals support a woman preaching on Sunday morning. It’s honestly hard to find a combination of factors (attendance, age, partisanship) that drive support below 50%. christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/june-w…

Image

Twitter avatar for @RNS

Religion News Service@RNS

Breaking: Saddleback Church, the megachurch long led by Rick Warren, has been ousted from the Southern Baptist Convention for naming a woman to its pastoral team, against SBC teaching. https://t.co/CHqxuKt334

If you belong to an organization that wants to force underage girls to bear their rapists’ babies but can’t handle a grown woman in the pulpit, then you’re part of the problem.

Saddleback should be celebrating their expulsion. Without even really trying, they managed to get rid of the worst aspect of their church: the affiliation with the SBC. The members of Saddleback had no problem with female pastors. It’s not like the megachurch will suffer as a result of yesterday’s decision.

This is just another self-inflicted wound by SBC leaders who care more about defending patriarchal traditions than possibly bringing new members into the fold.

© 2023 Hemant Mehta
Hemant Mehta c/o Friendly Atheist P.O. Box 9734 Naperville, IL 60567

Faith vs. Fact, by Jerry Coyne. Reading Session #4 (continuing Chapter 1, The Problem)

This is a great book. Eye-opening, especially to those who’ve never considered the incompatibility of science and religion.

I encourage you to watch my computer screen, listen, and think as I read aloud the words written by the brilliant evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne.

Click the link below to begin Reading Session #4. It begins at Kindle Page 21, Location 385.

Reading Session #3, 2, and 1 can be found here, here, and here.

https://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/c0nY37Vy38g

$100M Jesus Ads Point to Exploitable Weakness in Religious Right

Here’s the link to this article.

Article written by Valerie Tarico.

Posted on 02/20/20. 

Christianity has a brand problem. If it were a corporation, brand managers would be scrambling to scrub public image—maybe by greenwashing or with corporate diversity trainings or by renaming their product, say natural gas instead of methane, or by coming up with a new catchy slogan.  Or they might actually do something substantive, like ceasing to “gift” baby formula to poor moms or to use child labor in their factories. There are many ways to polish brand.

Christianity’s recently launched He Gets US campaign—millions of people got a dose during the Superbowl—tells us two things: 1. Conservative Evangelical Christians care about their brand problem.  2. Some major Christian donors have decided, to the tune of $100 million apparently, to go with the greenwashing strategy rather than substantive change.  And that combination provides a possible avenue for fighting back against some of the ugly objectives and tactics of the Religious Right.

The people paying for this ad campaign are the same ones promoting homophobia, advocating against reproductive healthcare for women, and funding politicians to protect the good old pecking orders: rich over poor, men over women, pasty white people over everyone with more melanin.

Losing customers
Back when the world and I were young, Evangelical Christians were a politically diverse group. But Republican strategists recognized them as a potential political voting block. Hierarchical social structures within churches meant the strategists had to recruit only Church leaders, and those leaders would bring along their congregations. It worked for the Republican party, but at an enormous cost to Christianity as an institution. That is because right wing operatives were spending down Christianity’s good name by merging its brand with their own.  The more Christianity came to be associated with ugly political priorities—and then crass power grab-‘em-by-the-pussies—the more young people fled the ChurchBy the millions.  (Tangentially, Islam faces a similar brand problem and deconversion pattern wherever the Mullahs wield political force. Almost half of Iranians say they used to be religious.)

Losing money
Losing customers by the millions would be a problem for any corporate body—especially one with a product that people realize they don’t need when they actually take a good look.  When there are better options, in this case secularism, people rarely go back to the same-old-same-old.  The financial impact of deconversion is potentially huge. The Mormon Church may coerce tithes with visits from elders who review a family’s finances, but most protestant and Catholic sects rely on more subtle social and emotional pressures. Either way, market share requires mindshare. You have to get people in the door before you can pass the basket.

Losing prospects
But this isn’t merely a financial calculus. At some point, brand damage becomes a threat to identity. Evangelicals are evangelical.  It’s part of the ideology.  Go into all the world and make disciples of every creature. Unlike Judaism or Hinduism, Christianity is a proselytizing religion. Proselytizing (ok, coupled with colonization and holy wars) has been the strategy that allowed Christianity to spread across the planet. Missionaries may not explicitly recognize that they are recruiting paying customers who will trade cash for club benefits and afterlife services, but they do recognize that “harvesting souls” is a central commandment of their faith. For many, this mandate—called the Great Commission—is their version of praying five times facing Mecca. For some, it becomes an underlying feature in virtually every relationship: All non-Christians are potential converts; friendliness becomes friendship missions; feeding the poor becomes first-and-foremost a path to winning their souls. Evangelicals are a sales force, and as their brand becomes more and more soiled, it gets harder to do their job.

In need of a savior
Having spent down Christianity’s brand, the patriarchs of the religious right are uncomfortable with how far that has gone—the image, that is, not the substance. Most Americans used to think of the Bible as The Good Book, but not anymore.  Most Americans used to think of Christianity (and religion more broadly) as benign, but not anymore.  Jesus, though—the image of Jesus is relatively untainted. Even those who don’t buy into the idea of him being the perfect human sacrifice who saves our souls (Are you washed in the blood?) tend to believe that he was a good, wise, loving man.  They think we know a lot more about him than we do, and what they think we know is positive.  So, it totally makes sense that a $100 million rebranding and recruiting effort would center on the person of Jesus.  Much of Christian theology is nasty, and the Iron Age texts in the Bible contradict what we now know about science, anthropology and—well, pretty much every other field of modern scholarship. This iconic personal Jesus is all they have left.

The fact that conservative Christians are spending $100 million on marketing Jesus means they are bad off and know it. It means they recognize the deterioration in their brand, and they feel desperate to turn it around.  They have made the mistake of letting that desperation slip out, and those of us who would rather not return to the good old dark ages when the Church ruled the world can exploit that vulnerability.  Their product sucks, and we need to keep saying so in every way possible. We need to make sure the general public keeps associating Christianity with what Christians are doing, not what they are saying:  Those anti-abortion centers that dupe women into keeping pregnancies aren’t Crisis Pregnancy Centers, they are Church Pregnancy Centers.  Fetal personhood isn’t a philosophical debate, it’s theology.  Denying rights to queer folks and women isn’t conservative, it’s theocracy. 

When people do ugly things that are motivated by religious dogma, we should name what’s going on. Conservative Christians are telling us that they can’t afford more brand damage.  And maybe if their bad works keep getting exposed they will realize that the answer isn’t Jesus-washing; it’s substantive change. 

_________________________________

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings.  Her articles about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society have been featured at sites including The Huffington Post, Salon, The Independent, Quillette, Free Inquiry, The Humanist, AlterNet, Raw Story, Grist, Jezebel, and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.  Subscribe at ValerieTarico.com.   

Puncturing the God Fallacy, Repeatedly and Thoroughly

By David Madison at 2/17/2023

Here’s the link to this article.

Religion’s greatest harm: “…the subversion of clear thinking…”

“I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.” This famous line from the 1976 film, Network, reflects the approach of so many secular/atheist writers of our time. Outrage is reignited, continually.

This headline caught my attention a few days ago: Thousands of children abused by members of Portugal’s Catholic Church over 70 years. At the top of the article:

“At least 4,815 children were sexually abused by members of the Portuguese Catholic Church – mostly priests – over the past 70 years, a report by the commission investigating the issue said on Monday, adding the findings are the tip of the iceberg.” Child psychiatrist Pedro Strecht said “the 4,815 cases were the ‘absolute minimum’ number of victims of sexual abuse by clergy members in Portugal since 1950…Most perpetrators (77%) were priests and most of the victims were male…they were abused in Catholic schools, churches, priests’ homes, confessionals, among other locations.”

Such scandals have come to the public’s attention repeatedly, worldwide. We are entitled to wonder: Why isn’t membership in the Catholic Church down to zero by now? Systemic sexual abuse also has come to light in Protestant denominations as well. It would seem that the apostle Paul misjudged the impact of believing in Jesus: “…those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Galatians 5:24).

If we’re surveying damage done by religion, sex-obsessed clergy is just the tip of the iceberg—and there are a lot of other icebergs. Christopher Hitchens provided a comprehensive overview in his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Given this reality, theology is overwhelmingly incoherent, but folks keep showing up for church because they’ve perfected the fine art of tuning out. They cling to doctrines and ritual by ignoring solid arguments against god-beliefs: “Oh no, we can’t listen to that!” “Oh no, we don’t want to think about the challenges to faith!” We can suspect that such alarm is based on doubts that lurk just below the surface; they’re afraid—they know all too well—that faith is easily punctured.  

There has been a long tradition of exposing the flaws of theism, especially the Christian version, e.g. Robert Ingersoll, Mark Twain, H. L. Mencken, Bertrand Russell, to name but a few. But the faith-motivated horrors of 9/11 prompted what I have called the atheist publishing surge: so many serious thinkers raising their voices because they’re mad as hell. The case against theism has been made so thoroughly, so convincingly. Of course, Christian apologists have been fighting back—there is so much at stake, above all, the hope of winning eternal life. But on the more practical, political level: they have a vested interest in the colossal Christian bureaucracy, spread over thousands of denominations: exactly what the world doesn’t need. All the more reason to expose Christianity’s fatal flaws. 

We have the Debunking Christianity Blog because of the focus and determination of John W. Loftus, who has also been busy for quite a few years publishing books on the falsification of Christianity. To see them all at a glance, visit his Amazon Author Page. This is a good place to start in appreciating how thoroughly Christian theology has been smashed. Many of Loftus’ works are anthologies, and are thus helpful portals for finding books by multiple atheist authors.  

I’m always on the lookout for concise refutations of theological pretense, and I found an especially good one a few years ago in S. T. Joshi’s book, God’s Defenders: What They Believe and Why They are Wrong. Among the god-defenders he takes aim at are William F. Buckley, Jr., Jerry Falwell, and C. S. Lewis. Today I want to draw attention, however, to his 18-page Introduction, a scathing rebuke of theism. He explains precisely why religions have been successful; they have been “…perpetuated not through the accumulation of additional evidence that validated their tenants, but through the systematic indoctrination of peoples into religious dogma from infancy onward, generation after generation” (p. 12).

“The dominant question thus becomes not why religion has not died away but why it continues to persist in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary. To my mind, the answer can be summed up in one straightforward sentence: People are stupid. The fundamental fact of human history is that people in the mass are irremediably ignorant” (p. 12). 

Stupidity and ignorance. Certainly this is not a good place to start when I engage with devout Christians: “Oh my, how stupid you are!” “How have you managed to stay so ignorant?”  There’s a better way to go about it. I ask questions about their understanding of Christian origins, their knowledge of the four gospels and how they relate. Mostly commonly, I find that their grasp of such things hovers near zero. How do stupidity and ignorance relate? Joshi suggests this:

“When I declare that religion is so widespread because people in the mass are stupid, I assert that they lack the information needed to make a well-informed evaluation of the truth-claims of religion” (p. 13).

Perhaps refusal to seek important information is one of the fundamentals of stupidity: the brain is stuck in a very bad place: the lack of curiosity, not wanting to learn, the refusal to learn—even contempt for learning, e.g.: 

As the U.S. is caught up in an ongoing epidemic of mass shootings, we see members of congress wearing assault-rifle shaped lapel pins; Lauren Boebert released a photo of her four sons holding rifles, standing in front of a Christmas tree.     

The Nazis kept very careful records of the Holocaust, because they were confident that killing Jews benefited humanity. In fact the Holocaust is one of the most thoroughly documented events in history. In the face of all this, there are Holocaust deniers. Certainly stupidity plays a role here, as well as arrogant and aggressive ignorance. 

These factors are heavily in play when we look at the common reasons advanced for belief in god, but these arguments don’t work, as Joshi points out: “The standard ‘proofs’ for the existence of God—arguments that have held sway throughout the medieval period and well into the nineteenth century—have all been destroyed and are now discarded even by most theologians” (p.16). He mentions five of them.

The First Cause

When Christian defenders have their backs against the wall—because theology is hobbled by so many flaws—they feel confident that there had to have been a creator. And they assume that this creator god is Bible-god, apparently giving no thought whatever to how they would know this: how was it that the ancient tribal deity, Yahweh—imagined by humans who knew nothing about the Cosmos—was present at creation? And it’s risky business indeed, since Bible-god is an authoritarian bully, although this oh-so-obvious fact is usually camouflaged with feel-good Bible verses. In their confidence in the first cause argument, they neglect to consult cosmologists, the scientists who are truly curious and determined in their hunt to discover cosmic origins. Joshi points out the complications:

“…there is no reason to postulate a single First Cause: given the multiplicity of phenomenon throughout the universe, there is no logical reason for assuming that there could not be two, three, or many First Causes…It could always be asserted that God himself caused the Big Bang, but God’s existence must be established independently before one can assume that he triggered the Big Bang” (pp. 16-17). 

The “Consensus of Mankind”

For millennia humans have believed in gods. How could they be wrong about these spiritual intuitions? Charles Darwin once wondered if lightening hadn’t given birth to religion: there’s an angry power in the sky. Now we know it’s a matter of electrical charges. And the diversity of guesses about the gods makes us suspicious, as Joshi notes:

“…comparative religion has shown that conceptions of godhead differ so widely from culture to culture—even from individual to individual within a given culture—that it becomes preposterous to assume that these people are believing in the same or even an approximately similar god” (p. 17). 

John C. Wathey has demonstrated that the impulse to believe is not based on mysteries residing in the sky. See his two books, The Illusion of God’s Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing and The Phantom God: What Neuroscience Reveals about the Compulsion to Believe.

The Argument from Design

This continues to have enormous appeal—“Look how wonderfully the world is put together!”—and derives in part from William Paley’s (1743-1805) analogy of the watchmaker. If you find a watch on the ground while out for a walk, of course you know there was a clever designer/maker who created it. But, again, how do you connect this designer with Bible-god? If anyone wants to make the case for this, Joshi notes the major impediment:

“…there is the plain fact that many things do not seem well designed: if the divine purpose of existence is the fostering of life, then the exact function of diseases, earthquakes, typhoons, and other such embarrassment is, to put it mildly, problematic” (p. 18).

Abby Hafer has made this case in detail: The Not-So-Intelligent Designer: Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not

The Argument from Feelings

It bears repeating that feeling Jesus—or any other deity—in your heart, is evidence for what you’re feeling. The chances you’re picking up vibes about how the Cosmos runs are slim to none—unless you can provide reliable, verifiable, objective data to back up the claim. It’s not hard to locate the source of intense feelings, as Joshi notes: “…it can be demonstrated that in the great majority of cases their ‘feelings’ are the result of prior religious indoctrination” (p. 18).

The Moral Argument

“This argument is probably the weakest of all, for it does not even seek to prove that a god exists but merely that it is socially beneficial for the people to believe in a god…” (p. 19). Joshi notes that people who aren’t religious follow high moral standards, and while many devout people don’t. He also points out that so many of the “moral” teachings found in various scriptures are “the products of barbarism, are unsuited for a civilized society…” (p. 19). The list of barbarisms is obvious, including the acceptance of slavery and misogyny. And we all know the horrors committed by Christian fanatics for centuries: the Crusades, the Inquisition, virulent anti-Semitism.  

While Joshi’s focus in this Introduction is exposing the weaknesses of common arguments for god, he mentions briefly the problem of evil that has “dogged religious thinkers for centuries” (p. 24). And indeed this problem abolishes the credibility of theism. Major and minor catastrophes, which have caused so much suffering for millennia, rule out the Christian claim that there is a caring, attentive, competent god. Here’s another headline that caught my attention this week: Robert Hébras, last survivor of World War II Oradour-sur-Glane massacre, has died. 

This another case of Christians tuning out: Oradour-sur-Glane is far beyond their horizon of awareness. On 10 June 1944, German troops retreating from France vented their rage on this small village, killing 643 people: the men had been herded into barns, shot, and then the barns were burned. The women and children were locked in the church and machine-gunned to death. In the church. Robert Hébras was shot several times, but managed to crawl out from under corpses and escape. He dedicated much of his life to telling the story of the massacre, and working for French-German reconciliation. The ruins of the village are preserved as a memorial.

Without resorting to “god works in mysterious ways” and “god has a bigger plan that we don’t know”—both of which are techniques for not thinking—Christians need to always keep Oradour-sur-Glane in mind: women and children massacred in the church. Their god just watched.

 S. T. Joshi has called it correctly:

“…it is plain that the battle against religious obscurantism must and will continue. The moment one folly is snuffed out, another and still greater folly seems to emerge to take its place. The greatest harm that religion has done, and continues to do…is the subversion of clear thinking” (p. 26). 

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 Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith (2016; 2018 Foreword by John Loftus) and Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (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
Please support us at DC by commenting on and by sharing our posts, or subscribing,donating, or buying our books at Amazon.

What is Christianity?

This is a good place to start. This podcast reveals many truths about Christianity that most folks don’t know or don’t want to know.

Listen to the chat between Sam Harris and Bart Ehrman.

Click here: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/what-is-christianity

Here’s the episode description:

May 1, 2018

Sam Harris speaks to Bart Ehrman about his experience of being a born-again Christian, his academic training in New Testament scholarship, his loss of faith, the most convincing argument in defense of Christianity, the status of miracles, the composition of the New Testament, the resurrection of Jesus, the nature of heaven and hell, the book of Revelation, the End Times, self-contradictions in the Bible, the concept of a messiah, whether Jesus actually existed, Christianity as a cult of human sacrifice, the conversion of Constantine, and other topics.

Bart D. Ehrman is the author or editor of more than thirty books, including the New York Times bestsellers Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God. Ehrman is a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a leading authority on the New Testament and the history of early Christianity. He has been featured in TimeThe New Yorker, and The Washington Post, and has appeared on NBC, CNN, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The History Channel, National Geographic, BBC, major NPR shows, and other top print and broadcast media outlets. His most recent book is The Triumph of Christianity.